^^>^N^^^ 


ot  \^«  ^^foHim  ^ 


"f'U 


% 


PRINCETON,     N.     J 


Division g      vi^'-ov      / 

■  ..,„.„ /O.S^(o 

Shrf/: Xumh.r V  .'....  J^.  | 


V 


THE 


COLLECTED  WRITINGS 


James  Henley  Thornwell,  d.d..  ll.d.. 


;      j^.^.,      JLJJL^.^  ., 


LATE  PROFESSOR  OF  THEOLOGY  IN  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 
AT  COLUMBIA,  SOUTH  CAROLINA. 


EDITED   BY 

JOHN   B.    ADGER,    D.D. 
JOHN  L.  GIRAEDEAU,  D.D. 


VOL.  III. -THEOLOGICAL  AND  CONTROVERSIAL 


E I C  H  M  O  N  D  : 
PEESBYTEEIAN   COMMITTEE   OF   PUBLICATION. 


NEW  YORK:  ROBEKT  CARTER  &  BROS.    PHILADELPHIA:  ALFRED  5IARTIKX. 
1873. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  iu  the  year  1S72,  by 

CHARLKS    GEN  NET, 

in  trust,  as 

Treasurer  of  Pubucation  of  the  Gexeral  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 

Church  in  the  United  States, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  "Washington. 


S: 


CONTENTS. 


PAET  I.— KATIONALIST  CONTEOVERSY. 

PAGE 

Prefatory  Note  by  the  Editor 7 

The  Standard  and  Nature  of  Religion  in  three  Sections..      9 

Section  1.  An  External  Standard  Vindicated 9 

"       2.  Religion  Psychologically  Considered 78 

"       3.  Revelation  and  Religion 153 

The  Office  of  Reason  in  regard  to  Revelation 183 

Miracles 221 

Their  Nature 228 

Their  Apologetic  Worth 233 

Their  Credibility 251 

PART  II.— PAPAL  CONTROVERSY. 

Prefatory  Note  by  the  Editor 279 

The  Validity  of  the  Baptism  of  the  Church  of  Rome 283 

Romanist  Arguments  for  the  Apocrypha  Discussed 413 

Letter        I.  Preliminary  Statements — Council  of  Trent  and   the 

Canon 413 

"  II.  The  Argument  for  Inspiration  Examined 430 

"        IIL  The  Argument  for  an  Infallible  Body 439 

"         IV.  Historical  Argument 460 

"  V.  Infallibility— Historical  Difficulties 475 

"         VL  Infallibility  and  Skepticism 493 

"        VII.  Infallibility  and  Superstition 51fi 

"      VIIL  Infallibility  and  Civil  Government 540 

"         IX.  The  Apocrypha  not  quoted  in  the  New  Testament 558 

"  X.  The  Apocrypha  and  the  Jewish  Canon 569 

"         XI.  Silence  of  Christ  as  to  the  Apocrypha 584 

"        XII.  The  Apocrypha  and  the  Jewish  Church — The  Apoc- 
rypha and  the  Primitive  Church 600 

"      XIII.  The  Apocrypha  and  Ancient  Versions  of  Scripture — 

The  Apocrypha  and  the  Apostolic  Fathers 611 

"      XIV.  Patristic  terms  applied  to  the  Apocrypha 628 

3 


4  CONTENTS. 

PAOE 

Letter  XV.  Testimonies  from  the  Second  Century 644 

"      XVI.  Testimonies  from  the  Tiiird  Century 665 

"    XVir.  Testimonies  from  the  Fourth  Century G77 

"  XVIII.  The  Keal  Testimony  of  tiie  Primitive  Church 711 

Appendix 743 

Original  Article  on  the  Apocrypha  by  the  Author 745 

Specimen  Letters  of  a  Keply  by  the  Kev.  P.  N.  Lynch,  D.  D 753 

Collection  of  Passages  in  wliich  Dr.  Lynch  represents  the  Fathers 

as  quoting  the  Apocrypha 802 


PART  I. 
RATIONALIST  CONTROYERSY. 


'^ 


OBTOH 

^,„  ,,i 


PREFATOKY   NOTE. 


These  contributions  to  the  Controversy  with  the  Eationalists  consist  of— 
1.  An  examination  of  Mr.  Morell's  celebrated  work,  entitled  The  Philos- 
ophy of  Religion;  2.  A  discussion  of  the  Office  of  Eeason  in  regard  to 
Eevelation ;  and  3.  A  Treatise  on  Miracles.  They  were  all  published  in 
the  Southern  Presbyterian  Keview,  and  the  last  one  appeared  likewise  in 
the  Southern  Quarterly  during  the  short  period  for  which  Dr.  Thornwell 
was  the  conductor  of  that  work. 

Our  authority  for  the  titles  we  have  given  to  the  Examination  of  Morell, 
and  to  its  different  portions,  will  be  found  in  the  first  pages  of  the  second 
section  of  it.  Dr.  Thornwell /rs<  considers  the  Philosophy  of  Religion  in 
the  light  of  an  argument  against  an  external  Eevelation  as  the  authoritative 
Standard  of  Eeligion ;  and  secondly,  he  examines  the  Psycnoiogy  of  Morell 
in  relation  to  the  question,  What  is  the  nature  of  the  Subject  in  which  Ee- 
ligion inheres?  There  remains,  for  the  full  execution  of  his  plan  as 
announced,  the  consideration,  thirdly,  of  the  Essence  of  Eeligion  itself,  and 
fourthly,  of  the  Mode  in  which  Eeligion  is  produced — in  other  words,  the 
question.  How  is  the  given  Subject  put  in  possession  of  the  given  Essence? 
These  two  last  points  he  subsequently  threw  together,  and  discussed  them 
in  the  form  of  a  sermon  preached  in  Charleston  before  the  Young  Men's 
Christian  Association.  This  sermon  constitutes  Section  third  of  the  Ex- 
amination of  Morell's  work. 

Section  First  appeared  first  in  October,  1849,  Section  Second  in  January, 
1850,  but  Section  Third  not  until  April,  1856. 

The  discussion  of  the  Office  of  Eeason  in  regard  to  Eevelation  was 
published  in  June,  1847,  as  the  first  article  of  Volume  First  of  that  Ee- 
view  whose  pages  during  some  fifteen  years  were  illuminated  with  so  many 
of  the  productions  of  his  pen.  The  question,  which  he  considers  here  is 
not  the  office  of  Eeason  in  relation  to  doctrines  known  to  be  a  Eevelation 
from  God— where,  of  course,  the  understanding  is  simply  to  believe— but 


8  PREFATORY    NOTE. 

the  office  of  Reason  -where  tlie  reality  of  the  Eevelation  remains  to  be 
proved  and  the  interpretation  of  the  doctrine  to  be  settled.  The  general 
principle  is  maintained  that  the  competency  of  Eeason  to  judge  in  any 
case  is  the  measure  of  its  right.  And — a  distinction  being  made  in  the 
contents  of  the  Scriptures  betwixt  the  Supernatural  or  what  is  strictly  Re- 
vealed, and  the  Katural  or  what  is  confirmed  but  not  made  known  by  the 
Divine  testimony — it  is  argued  that  the  office  of  Eeason  in  the  Super- 
natural department  of  Eevelation  may  be  positive,  but  never  can  be  neg- 
ative, while  in  the  Natural  it  is  negative,  but  to  a  very  limited  extent,  if 
at  all,  positive.  In  other  words,  in  the  Supernatural,  Eeason  may  prove, 
but  cannot  refute — in  the  Natural,  she  may  refute,  but  cannot  establish. 

The  Treatise  on  Miracles  was  published  July,  1857,  in  the  form  of  a 
Eeview  of  the  works  of  Trench,  Wakdlaw  and  Hinds.  It  opens  with 
a  brief  history  of  the  Controversy  with  tlie  Eationalists,  and  then  discusses 
the  Nature,  the  Apologetic  Worth  and  the  Credibility  of  the  Miracle.  It 
is  supernatural — a  temporary  suspension  of  the  laws  of  nature;  it  is,  in 
itself,  a  sufficient  credential  of  a  Divine  commission ;  it  is  as  credible  as 
any  other  fact,  and  may  be  proved  by  competent  testimony.  The  possi- 
bility of  the  event  is  thje  sole  limit  to  the  credibility  of  testimony,  and 
the  question  of  the  possibility  of  the  Miracle  is  simply  the  question  of 
the  Existence  of  a  personal  God. 


THE 


STANDARD  AND  NATURE  OF  RELIGION. 

A   REVIEW,  IN   THREE   SECTIONS, 

OF 

MORELL'S  PHILOSOPHY  OF  RELIGION. 


SECTION    I. 

AN    EXTERNAL   STANDARD   VINDICATED. 

"  rpHE  design  of  this  book,"  ^  we  are  told  in  the  preface, 
_L  "grew  out  of  some  of  the  reviews  which  appeared 
upon  a  former  work  of  the  author's,  entitled  An  Historical 
and  Critical  View  of  the  Speculative  Philosophy  of  Europe 
in  the  Nineteenth  Century."  These  reviews  evinced,  at 
least  to  the  mind  of  Mr.  Morell,  "such  a  vast  fluctuation 
of  opinion,"  and  such  deplorable  obscurity  and  confusion 
of  ideas  upon  the  whole  subject  of  the  connection  betwixt 
philosophy  and  religion,  that,  in  mercy  to  the  general  igno- 
rance, and  particularly  in  deference  to  a  suggestion  of  Tho- 
luck,  he  was  induced  "to  commence  a  discussion"  which, 
he  evidently  hoped,  might  have  the  effect  of  imparting  in- 
tensity to  the  religious  life,  vigour  to  the  religious  literature 
and  consistency  to  the  religious  sentiments  of  his  country. 
He  is  at  pains  to  inform  us,^  and  we  thank  him  for  the 
information — the  book  itself  furnishing  abundant  internal 
evidence,  which,  in  the  absence  of  such  a  declaration,  would 
^  Page  iii.  ^  Preface,  p.  xxxii. 

9 


10  STANDARD   AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.         [Sect.  I. 

have  been  decisive  to  the  coutrarv — that  he  has  not  rushed 
"hastily  and  unpreparedly  into  the  region  of  theological 
inquirv."  ""While  philosophy  has  been  the  highest  recrea- 
tion, theology,"  he  declares,  "has  ever  been  the  serious 
business  of  my  whole  life.  To  the  study  of  this  science  I 
gave  my  earliest  thoughts,  under  the  guidance  of  one^ 
who  is  recognized  by  all  parties  as  standing  amongst  the 
leading  theologians  of  our  age ;  I  pursued  it  through  many 
succeeding  years;  and  if  I  have  found  any  intense  pleasure, 
or  felt  any  deep  interest  in  philosophy  at  large,  it  has  been 
derived,  mainly,  from  the  consciousness  of  its  high  import- 
ance, as  bearing  upon  the  vastest  moral  and  religious  in- 
terests of  mankind."  Trained  by  this  fitting  discipline  for 
the  task,  it  is  perhaps  no  presumption  in  Mr.  Morell  to 
have  published  a  book  which  professes  to  be  not  "  a  popular 
and  attractive  exposition"  of  the  questions  which  come 
within  its  scope,  but  a  thorough  philosopliical  discussion, 
developing  "from  the  beginning,  as  far  as  possible  in  a 
connected  and  logical  form,"  a  subject  which  involves  the 
fundamental  principles  of  human  knowledge,  and  that  any- 
thing like  justice  may  be  done  to  it,  demands,  at  every  step, 
the  subtlest  analysis,  the  profouudest  reasoning  and  the  in- 
tensest  power  of  reflection.  These  qualities  Mr.  Morell 
may  possess  in  an  eminent  degree — he  may  even  feel  that 
the  possession  of  them  implies  a  vocation  of  God  to  give  a 
new  and  nobler  impulse  to  the.  religion  of  his  country,  and 
that,  like  all  apostles,  he  is  entitled  to  use  great  boldness 
of  speech — still  we  cannot  but  suggest  that,  as  modesty  be- 
comes the  great,  a  little  less  pretension  would  have  de- 
tracted nothing  from  the  charms  of  his  performance.  The 
perpetual  recurrence  of  phrases  which  seem  to  indicate  the 
conviction  of  the  author  that  his  book  is  distinguished  by 
extraordinary  depth,  and  that  he  is  gifted  M'ith  a  superior 
degree  of  mental  illumination,  is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  ex- 
tremely ofiensive  to  the  taste  of  his  readers;  and  he  Mill 

*  We  learn  from  the  'Son\\  British  Review  that  Dr.  'NVarillaw  is  the  di- 
vine referred  to. 


Sect.  I.]       an  external  standard  vindicated.         11 

probably  find  few  who  are  prejiared  to  share  in  the  super- 
ciKous  contempt  which  he  lavishes  upon  the  prospective 
opponents  of  his  system.  The  philosophy  with  which  Mr. 
Morell  is  impregnated  is  essentially  arrogant ;  and  it  is  more 
to  it  than  to  him  that  we  ascribe  the  pretending  tone  of 
his  work.  The  pervading  consciousness  of  the  weakness 
and  ignorance  of  man,  the  diffidence  of  themselves,  the 
profound  impression  of  the  boundlessness  of  nature  and 
of  the  limitless  range  of  inquiry  which  lies  beyond  the 
present  grasp  of  our  faculties,  the  humility,  modesty  and 
caution  which  characterize  the  writings  of  the  great  Eng- 
lish masters,  will  in  vain  be  sought  among  the  leading 
philosophers  of  modern  Germany  and  France.  Aspiring 
to  penetrate  to  the  very  essence  of  things,  to  know  them 
in  themselves  as  well  as  in  the  laws  which  regulate  their 
changes  and  vicissitudes,  they  advance  to  the  discussion  of 
the  sublimest  problems  of  God,  the  soul  and  the  universe 
with  an  audacity  of  enterprise  in  which  it  is  hard  to  say 
whether  presumption  or  folly  is  most  conspicuous.  They 
seem  to  think  that  the  human  faculties  are  competent  to  all 
things,  that  whatever  reaches  beyond  their  compass  is  mere 
vacuity  and  emptiness,  that  omniscience,  by  the  due  use 
of  their  favourite  organon,  may  become  the  attainment 
of  man,  as  it  is  the  prerogative  of  God,  and  that,  in  the 
very  structure  of  the  mind,  the  seeds  are  deposited  from 
which  may  be  developed  the  true  system  of  the  universe. 

Within  the  limits  of  legitimate  inquiry  we  would  lay  no 
restrictions  upon  freedom  of  thought.  All  truly  great  men 
are  conscious  of  their  powers;  and  the  confidence  which 
they  have  in  themselves  inspires  the  strength,  intensity  and 
enthusiasm  which  enable  them  to  conceive  and  to  execute 
purposes  worthy  of  their  gifts.  To  the  timid  and  distrustful 
their  excursions  may  often  seem  bold  and  j^resumptuous; 
but  in  the  most  daring  adventures  of  their  genius  they  are 
restrained,  as  if  by  an  instinct,  from  the  visionary  projects 
and  chimerical  speculations  which  transcend  the  sphere  of 
their  capacities,  as  the  eagle,  in  his  loftiest  flights,  never 


12  STANDARD   AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.         [Sect.  I. 

soars  beyond  the  strength  of  his  pinion.  Confidence  ad- 
justed to  the  measure  of  power  never  degenerates  into 
arrogance.  It  is  the  soul  of  courage,  perseverance  and 
heroic  achievement;  it  supports  its  possessor  amid  discour- 
agements and  obstacles;  it  represses  the  melancholy,  languor 
and  fits  of  despondency  to  which  the  choicest  spirits  are 
subject;  it  gives  steadiness  to  efibrt,  patience  to  industry  and 
sublimity  to  hope.  But  when  men  forget  that  their  capa- 
cities are  finite,  that  there  are  boundaries  to  human  investi- 
gation and  research,  that  there  are  questions  which,  from 
the  very  nature  of  the  mind  and  the  necessary  conditions 
of  human  knowledge,  never  can  be  solved  in  this  sublunary 
state — ^when  they  are  determined  to  make  their  understand- 
ings the  sole  and  adequate  standard  of  all  truth,  and  pre- 
sumptuously assume  that  the  end  of  their  line  is  the  bottom 
of  the  ocean, — this  is  intolerable  arrogance,  the  very  spirit 
of  ISIoloch, 

"Whose  trust  was  with  the  Eternal  to  be  deemed 
Equal  in  strength ;  and  rather  than  be  less 
Cared  not  to  be  at  all." 

We  can  have  no  sympathy  with  the  pretensions  of  any 
method,  whether  inductive  or  reflective,  which  aims  at  a 
science  of  being  in  itself,  and  professes  to  unfold  the  nature 
of  the  Deity,  the  constitution  of  the  universe  and  the  mys- 
teries of  creation  and  providence.  To  say,  as  INIr.  INIorell 
docs,^  that  "  our  knowledge  of  mind,  in  the  act  of  reflective 
consciousness,  is  perfectly  adequate,  that  it  reaches  to  the 
whole  extent  of  its  essence,  that  it  comprehends  the  intui- 
tion of  its  existence  as  a  jpoiver  or  activiUj,  and  likewise  the 
observation  of  all  its  determinations,"  is  sheer  extravagance 
and  rant,  which  can  be  matched  by  nothing  but  the 
astounding  declaration  of  the  same  author,  that  "to  talk 
of  knowing  mind  beyond  the  direct  consciousness  of  its 
spontaneous  being,  and  all  the  affections  it  can  undergo,  is 
absurd ;  there  is  nothing  more  to  know."     We  are  not  to  be 

1  History  of  Modern  Philosophy,  p.  53,  vol.  ii.,  second  Loudon  edition. 


^ 


Sect.  I.]         AN   EXTERNAL   STANDARD   VINDICATED.  13 

surprised  that  such  a  philosophy  should  find  nothing  to 
rebuke  it  in  the  awful  and  impenetrable  depths  of  the  Di- 
vine nature,  that  it  should  aspire  to  gaze  directly  upon  the 
throne  of  God,  and  profess  to  give  a  "direct  apperception" 
of  Him^  whom  no  man  hath  seen  or  can  see,  and  whose 
glory  would  be  intolerable  to  mortal  eyes.  Titanic  audacity 
is  the  native  spirit  of  the  system ;  and  it  is  in  the  imper- 
ceptible influence  of  this  spirit  upon  a  mind  otherwise 
generous  and  manly  that  we  find  the  explanation  of  the 
fact  that  ]Mr.  Morell,  in  the  tone  and  temper  of  his  per- 
formance, has  departed  so  widely  from  the  modesty  of  true 
science. 

There  is  one  feature  of  the  book  before  us  which  is  par- 
ticularly painful,  and  we  confess  our  embarrassment  in  find- 
ing terms  to  express  it.  Hypocrisy  would  precisely  indicate 
the  thing,  but  as  that  word  cannot  be  employed  without 
casting  a  serious  and,  we  believe,  an  undeserved  imputation 
upon  the  personal  integrity  of  the  author,  we  shall  forbear 
to  use  it.  We  have  no  doubt  that  he  is  cordial  and  sincere 
in  the  zeal  which  he  manifests  for  an  earnest  and  vital  re- 
ligion ;  but  what  we  object  to  is,  that  he  should  so  often 
employ  a  phraseology,  and  employ  it  in  such  connections, 
as  to  convey  the  idea  to  undiscriminating  readers — which 
the  whole  tenor  of  his  argument  proves  to  be  false — that 
the  earnest  and  vital  religion  which  enlists  his  zeal  em- 
braces the  distinctive  features  of  the  system  of  grace. 
When  he  speaks  of  Christianity,  in  its  essence,  as  a  deep 
inward  life  in  the  soul,  and  pours  contempt  upon  the  barren 
forms  and  frigid  deductions  of  logic  as  a  substitute  for 
piety — when  he  contends  for  divine  intuitions,  heavenly  im- 
pulses and  a  lofty  sympathy  and  communion  with  God — 
there  is  something  in  all  this  so  much  like  the  language 
of  converted  men  that  untutored  minds  are  apt  to  be 
caught  with  the  guile,  and  under  the  impression  that  they 

^  Ibid.,  p.  52.  It  is  refreshing  to  contrast  with  such  pretensions  the 
statements  of  Locke  in  the  introduction  of  his  celebrated  Essay  on  the 
Human  Understanding. 


14  STANDARD    AND    NATURE   OF   RELIGION.         [Sect.  I. 

are  still  clinging  to  the  doctrines  of  a  living,  in  opposition 
to  a  formal  and  dead,  Christianity,  may  imbibe,  without 
suspicion,  a  system  which  saps  the  foundations  of  the  whole 
economy  of  the  Gospel.  Mr.  Morell  is  no  friend  to  what 
is  commonly  denominated  Evangelical  Religion.  His 
divine  life  is  not  that  which  results  from  mysterious  union 
with  the  Son  of  God,  as  the  Head  of  a  glorious  covenant 
and  the  Father  of  a  heaven-born  progeny.  His  divine 
intuitions  are  not  the  illuminations  of  that  Sjjirit  which 
irradiates  the  written  Word,  and  reveals  to  our  hearts  the 
light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of 
Jesus  Christ;  his  communion  with  the  Father  is  not  the 
fellowship  of  a  child,  who  rejoices  in  the  assurance  of  his 
gracious  adoption,  and  renders  unceasing  thanks  for  his 
marvellous  deliverance,  through  the  blood  of  a  great  Me- 
diator, from  sin,  condemnation  and  ruin.  His  religion 
embraces  no  such  elements ;  and  he  ought  not,  in  candour, 
to  have  disguised  sentiments,  utterly  at  war  with  the  com- 
mon conceptions  of  piety,  in  the  very  dress  in  which  these 
conceptions  are  uniformly  presented.  If  he  has  intro- 
duced a  new  religion,  he  should  not  have  decked  it  in  the 
habits  of  the  old.  It  is  the  same  species  of  dishonesty, 
the  same  paltering  in  a  double  sense,  as  that  to  which  we 
object  in  Cousin,  who,  in  seeming  to  defend  the  inspiration 
of  Prophets  and  Apostles,  and  to  rebut  the  assaults  of  a 
rationalistic  infidelity,  really  denies  the  possibility  of  any 
distinctive  and  peculiar  inspiration  at  all,  and  places  Divine 
revelation  upon  the  same  platform  with  human  discoveries. 
We  acquit  Mr.  Morell  of  any  intention  to  deceive.  We 
rather  suspect  that  he  has  partially  imposed  upon  himself. 
We  can  understand  his  declaration,^  that  he  "does  not 
know  that  he  has  asserted  a  single  result  the  germs  and 
principles  of  which  are  not  patent  in  the  writings  of  various 
of  the  most  eminent  theologians  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, or  of  other  orthodox  communities,"  in  no  other  Avay 
than  by  supposing  that  he  has  been  so  long  accustomed  to 
^  Preface,  p.  xxxiii. 


Sect.  L]         AN   EXTERNAL   STANDARD   VINDICATED.  15 

associate  his  own  philosophical  opinions  with  the  character- 
istic phraseology  of  spiritual  religion  that  the  terms  have 
ceased  to  suggest  any  other  ideas  to  his  mind;  so  that  he  is 
unconscious  of  the  change  of  meaning  which  they  have 
imperceptibly  undergone  from  his  habits  of  thought.  His 
honesty,  however,  does  not  diminish  the  danger  which 
results  from  the  ambiguity  of  his  language.  A  corrupt 
system,  disguised  in  the  costume  of  the  true,  is  like  Satan 
transformed  into  an  angel  of  light.  We  should  have 
rejoiced  if  Mr.  MorelFs  religion  could  have  been  more 
nakedly  presented.  It  is  not  the  ingenuity  of  his  arguments, 
.nor  the  subtlety  of  his  analysis,  it  is  not  the  logical  state- 
ment or  the  logical  development  of  any  of  his  principles, 
from  which  the  most  serious  mischief  is  to  be  apprehended : 
it  is  from  his  fervour,  his  earnestness  and  zeal,  which,  in 
seeming  to  aim  at  a  higher  standard  of  Christian  life,  will 
enlist  the  sympathies  of  many,  who  feel  that  there  is  some- 
thing more  in  the  Gospel  than  a  meagre  skeleton  of  doc- 
trines. They  will  be  apt  to  think  that  the  words  which  he 
speaks  to  them,  resembling  so  often  the  tone  of  Christ  and 
His  Apostles,  are,  like  theirs,  spirit  and  life.  They  will 
take  the  draught  as  a  healthful  and  vivifying  potion,  and 
find,  too  late,  that  it  is  a  deadly  mixture  of  hemlock  and 
nightshade.  Here  is  the  danger ;  in  this  covert  insinuation 
of  false  principles,  this  gilding  of  a  nauseous  pill.  If  there 
were  less  in  the  book  which  counterfeits  the  emotions  that 
spring  from  religion,  the  operation  of  its  poison  would  be 
comparatively  circumscribed. 

The  danger,  in  the  present  instance,  is  incalculably  in- 
creased by  the  surpassing  enchantment  of  the  style,  which, 
though  not  distinguished  by  the  precision  of  Stewart,  the 
energy  of  Burke  or  the  exquisite  elegance  of  Hall,  has  a 
charm  about  it  which  holds  the  reader  spell-bound  from 
the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  volume.  We  will  venture 
to  assert  that  no  man  ever  took  up  the  book  who  was  will- 
ing to  lay  it  down  until  he  had  finished  it;  and  very  few, 
we  apprehend,  have  finished  it  who  were  willing  to  dismiss 


16  STANDARD   AND   NATURE   OF    RELIGION.         [Sect.  I 

it  without  another,  and  perhaps  still  another,  perusal.  Mr, 
Morcll  is  never  dull;  in  his  abstrusest  speculations,  in  his 
most  refined  and  subtle  efforts  of  analysis,  there  is  an  unc- 
tion Avhich  fascinates  the  reader;  he  has  the  art,  the  rare 
and  happy  art,  of  extracting  from  the  dry  bones  of  meta- 
physics a  delightful  entertainment.  The  sorcery  of  his 
genius  and  the  magic  of  his  eloquence  conceal  the  naked 
deformity  of  his  principles ;  and  attention  is  beguiled  from 
the  hideousness  of  the  object  by  the  finished  beauty  of  the 
painting. 

The  transparency  of  his  diction,  the  felicity  of  his  illus- 
trations, the  admirable  concatenation  of  his  thoughts,  his 
freedom  from  the  extremes  of  prolixity  and  brevity,  and 
his  skill  in  evolving  and  presenting  in  beautiful  coherence 
and  consistency  the  most  complicated  processes  of  thought, 
justly  entitle  him  to  rank  among  the  finest  philosophical 
writers  of  his  country.  Imbued  as  he  is  with  the  spirit  of 
German  philosophy,  and  thoroughly  conversant  with  the 
productions  of  its  best  masters,  it  is  no  small  praise  that  in 
his  own  compositions  he  has  avoided  all  affectation  of  foreign 
idioms,  and  that  at  a  time  when  our  language  seems  likely 
to  be  flooded  with  the  influx  of  a  "  pedantic  and  un-Eng- 
lish phraseology."  He  has  found  his  mother-tongue  amply 
adequate  to  the  expression  of  his  thoughts,  and  even  the 
misty  ideas  of  Germany,  which  its  own  authors  have  sel- 
dom been  able  to  render  intelligible  in  a  dialect  of  amazing 
flexibility  and  compass,  are  seized  with  so  firm  and  mascu- 
line a  grasp,  are  so  clearly  defined  and  so  luminously  con- 
veyed, that  we  hardly  recognize  their  identity,  and  can- 
not but  think  that  if  Kant  could  rise  from  the  dead  and 
read  his  speculations  in  the  pages  of  Mr.  Morell,  he  would 
understand  them  better  than  in  his  own  uncouth  and  bar- 
barous jargon.  We  could  wish  that  all  importers  of  Ger- 
man metaphysics  and  German  theology  would  imitate  the 
example  of  Mr.  Morell  in  his  use  of  the  vernacular  tongue. 
We  want  no  kitchen-Latin,  and  we  strongly  suspect  that 
anv  ideas  which  refuse  to  be  marslialled  in  Enulish  sen- 


Sect.  I.]         AN   EXTERNAL   STANDARD    VINDICATED.  17 

tences,  or  to  be  obedient  to  English  words,  are  unsuited  to 
our  soil,  and  had  better  be  left  to  vegetate  or  perish  on  the 
banks  of  the  Rhine. 

As  Mr.  Morell  nowhere  tells  us  precisely  what  he  means 
by  the  philosophy  of  religion,  we  are  left  to  collect  its  im- 
port from  his  occasional  statements  of  the  scope  and  design 
of  philosophy  in  general,  his  definition  of  religion,  and  the 
nature  of  the  whole  discussion.  Religion  he  carefully  dis- 
tinguishes from  theology  ;  they  are,  as  he  insists  in  his  former 
work,^  "■  two  widely  different  things.  Theology  implies  a 
body  of  truth  founded  upon  indisputable  principles,  and 
having  a  connection  capable  of  carrying  our  reason  with  it 
running  through  all  its  parts.  Religion,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  the  spontaneous  homage  of  our  nature,  j)oured  forth  with 
all  the  fragrance  of  holy  feeling  into  the  bosom  of  the  Infi- 
nite. Religion  may  exist  without  a  theology  at  all,  prop- 
erly so  called."  Or,  as  the  same  sentiments  are  expressed 
in  the  work  before  us, 

"Let  it  be  distinctly  understood  in  tlie  outset  that  we  are  speaking 
of  religion  now  as  a  fact  or  phenomenon  in  human  nature.  There  is 
a  very  common  but  a  very  loose  employment  of  the  term  religion,  in 
which  it  is  made  to  designate  the  outward  and  formal  principles  of  a 
community  quite  independently  of  the  region  of  human  experience, 
as  when  we  speak  of  the  Protestant  religion,  the  religion  of  Moham- 
med, the  religions  of  India,  and  the  like.  The  mixing  up  of  these 
two  significations  in  a  philosophical  treatise  cannot  fail  to  give  rise 
to  unnumbered  misunderstandings,  and  we  emphatically  repeat,  there- 
fore, that  in  our  present  use  of  the  term  we  are  not  intending  to 
express  any  system  of  truth  or  form  of  doctrine  whatever,  but  simply 
an  inward  fact  of  the  human  consciousness — a  fact,  too,  the  essential 
nature  of  which  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  for  us  to  discover. ' '  '^ 

By  religion,  then,  we  are  to  understand  not  a  system  of 
doctrine  or  a  creed,  but  those  states  of  the  mind  and  those 
inward  experiences  of  the  heart  which  spring  from  a  sense 
of  the  Infinite  and  Eternal.  But  religion,  in  general,  occu- 
pies a  very  subordinate  jilace  in  the  book  ;  it  is  only  intro- 
duced at  all   in   order  to  prepare  the  way  for  what  Mr. 

1  Vol.  ii.,  Appendix,  2d  Edition,  p.  G50.  -  Pages  62,  03. 

Vol.  III.— 2 


18  STANDARD    AND   XATUKE   OF   RELIGION.         [Sect.  I. 

Morell  (lonoiniuates  "the  Christian  consciousness."  It  is 
Christian  exjierience,  particularly,  which  he  proposes  to 
investigate.  But  what  is  the  ]^)liilosophy  of  religion  ?  AYe 
have  a  clue  to  what  the  author  means  by  it  in  the  following 
passage  of  the  preface : 

"All  great  systems  of  philosophy  are  simply  methods ;  they  do  not 
give  us  the  material  of  truth :  they  only  teach  us  how  to  realize  it,  to 
make  it  reflective,  to  construct  it  into  a  system."  ^ 

The  inquiries  which,  in  conformity  with  this  definition — 
a  definition,  we  would  add,  rather  of  logic  than  philosophy 
—we  should  expect  to  find  him  conducting  as  obviously 
falling  under  the  import  of  his  title,  are  such  as  have  ref- 
erence to  the  department  of  the  soul  in  which  religion  is 
pre-eminently  seated,  the  nature  and  origin  of  our  religious 
affections,  the  laws  of  their  development  and  growth,  the 
process  by  which  a  theology  may  be  formed,  and  the 
grounds  of  certainty  in  regard  to  religious  truth.  In  this 
expectation  we  are  not  disappointed;  these  are  the  high 
themes  that  he  discusses — the  pith  and  staple  of  his  argu- 
ment. But  we  must  take  the  liberty  to  say  that  in  our 
humble  judgment  the  analysis  of  these  points,  whatever 
appearances  of  candour  and  impartiality  may  be  impressed 
upon  it,  was  instituted  and  shaped  with  special  reference  to 
a  foregone  conclusion.  The  author  was  in  quest  of  what 
Archimedes  w^anted  in  order  to  move  the  world — a  tzou  arco — 
by  means  of  which  he  could  overturn  the  foundations  of 
the  Christian  faith.  There  was  a  darling  hypothesis  in 
relation  to  the  authority  of  the  Bible  which  he  was  de- 
termined to  establish;  and  with  an  eye  to  this  result  his 
philosophy,  though  digested  into  the  form  of  a  regular  and 
orderly  development  of  principles,  was  invented  and  framed. 
It  is  a  species  of  special  pleading,  ingeniously  disguised  in 
the  mask  of  philosophical  research  against  the  great  distinct- 
ive feature  of  Protestant  Christianity.  AVhen  we  contem- 
plate the  havoc  and  desolation  of  his  theory — the  Bible  as 
an  authoritative  standard  of  faith,  and  creeds  and  confes- 
'  Page  xxiv. 


^ 


Sect.  I.]  AN    EXTERNAL   STANDARD    VINDICATED.  19 

sions  as  bonds  of  Christian  communion  and  fellowship, 
involved  in  a  common  ruin,  with  nothing  to  supply  their 
place  but  the  dim  intimations  of  sentiment  and  feeling, 
chastened  and  regulated  by  the  natural  sympathy  of  earnest 
and  awakened  minds — we  might  be  appalled  at  the  pros- 
pect, if  it  were  not  for  the  consolatory  reflection  which  the 
author  himself  has  suggested,  that  his  "philosophy  does  not 
give  us  the  material  of  truth." 

But  to  be  a  little  more  minute,  the  book  is  divided  into 
twelve  chapters,  the  first  of  which  presents  us  with  a  gen- 
eral survey  of  the  human  mind.  And  as  two  of  its  powers 
are  found  to  be  of  fundamental  importance  to  the  subse- 
quent discussion,  the  second  is  devoted  to  a  somewhat  ex- 
tended elucidation  of  the  distinction  betwixt  them.  In 
these  two  chapters  the  "philosophical  groundwork"  is  laid 
of  the  author's  whole  system.  If  he  is  at  fault  in  any 
essential  point  of  his  analysis,  or  has  misapprehended  the 
nature  and  relations  of  the  "two  great  forms  of  our  intel- 
lectual being"  which  play  so  conspicuous  a  part  in  his 
theory,  his  speculations  labour  at  the  threshold,  the  founda- 
tions are  destroyed  and  the  superstructure  must  fall  to  the 
ground.  Since  a  human  religion  must  be  adjusted  to  the 
faculties  of  the  human  mind,  an  important  step  is  taken 
toward  the  determination  of  its  real  nature  when  these 
faculties  are  explored  and  understood.  Mr.  Morell  is, 
accordingly,  conducted  by  his  mental  analysis  to  an  inquiry 
into  "the  peculiar  essence  of  religion  in  general,"  which  he 
prosecutes  in  the  third,  and  to  a  similar  inquiry  into  the 
essence  of  Christianity  in  particular,  which  he  prosecutes  in 
the  fourth,  chapter  of  the  book.  He  is  now  prepared  to 
enter  into  the  core  of  the  subject ;  and  as  it  is  in  the  applica- 
tion of  his  psychology  to  the  affiliated  questions  of  Revela- 
tion and  Inspiration,  and  to  the  construction  of  a  valid 
system  of  Theology,  that  the  poison  of  his  principles  most 
freely  works,  we  must  invite  particular  attention  to  his 
opinions  upon  these  points,  the  development  of  which 
occupies  the  fifth,  sixth  and  seventh  chapters  of  the  work. 


20  STANDARD    AND    NATURE    OF    JfKLlCJION.  [Sect,  I. 

Revelation  he  regards  as  a  "mode  of  intelligence" — a 
process  by  which  a  new  field  of  ideas  or  a  new  range  of 
experience  is  opened  to  the  mind.  It  is  jirecisely  analo- 
gous to  external  perception,  or  that  more  refined  sensibility 
to  beauty  and  goodness  upon  which  we  are  dependent  for 
the  emotions  of  taste  and  the  operations  of  conscience.  It 
consists  in  the  direction  of  an  original  faculty  to  a  class  of 
objects  which  it  is  caj)able  of  apprehending.  It  is  wholly  a 
subjective  state,  and  should  never  be  confounded  with  the 
things  revealed;  a  spiritual  clairvoyance  which  brings  the 
soul  into  contact  w^itli  spiritual  realities,  and  enables  it  to 
gaze  ujion  invisible  glories.  Hence  an  external  revelation, 
or  a  revelation  which  does  not  exist  in  the  mind,  is  a  con- 
tradiction in  terms.  We  might  just  as  reasonably  suppose 
that  the  Bible  or  any  other  book  could  supply  the  place  of 
the  senses  in  giving  us  a  knowledge  of  the  material  w^orld, 
as  to  snppose  that  it  can  supply  the  place  of  revelation  in 
giving  us  a  knowledge  of  religion.  It  can  no  more  see  for 
us  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other;  this  is  a  personal 
operation,  a  thing  which  every  man  must  do  for  himself. 
And  as  each  individual  must  have  his  own  power  of  per- 
ception, that  he  may  know  the  existence  of  the  objects 
around  him,  so  each  individual  must  have  a  personal  and 
distinct  revelation  in  himself,  that  he  may  come  into  the 
possession  of  the  "Christian  consciousness;"  he  must  be 
brought  immediately  into  contact  with  the  object,  and  con- 
template it  "face  to  face."  Inspiration  is  not  essentially 
difl'erent  from  revelation ;  they  are  rather  different  aspects 
of  the  same  process.  As  in  all  immediate  knowledge  there 
is  an  intelligent  subject  and  an  intelligible  object  brought 
into  union,  revelation,  for  the  convenience  of  distinction, 
may  be  regarded  as  having  primary  reference  to  the  act  of 
God  in  presenting  spiritual  realities  to  the  mind;  and 
inspiration  to  wdiatever  influence  may  be  exerted  upon  the 
soul  in  order  that  it  may  be  able  to  grasp  and  comprehend 
the  realities  presented.  Revelation,  in  other  words,  gives 
the  object;  inspiration,  the  eye  to  behold  it.     The  concur- 


Sect.  I.]  AN    EXTERNAL    STANDARD    VINDICATED.  21 

rence  of  both  is  essential  to  the  production  of  knowledge. 
As  inspiration,  therefore,  indicates,  exclusively,  a  state  of 
the  mind,  and  that  a  state  in  whicli  we  are  conscious  of 
immediate  knowledge,  it  cannot  be  affirmed  of  any  class  of 
writings  nor  of  any  processes  of  reasoning.  An  inspired 
book  or  an  inspired  argument  is  as  senseless  a  form  of 
expression  as  an  intelligent  book  or  an  intelligent  argu- 
ment. Hence  the  whole  question  of  an  authoritative 
standard  of  religious  truth,  commended  to  our  faith  by  the 
testimony  of  God,  is  summarily  dismissed  as  involving  an 
absurdity — a  discovery  which  relieves  us  from  all  those 
perplexing  speculations  in  relation  to  the  proofs  of  a  Divine 
commission,  and  the  criteria  which  distinguish  the  Word 
of  God  from  the  delusions  of  man  or  the  impostures  of  the 
Devil,  upon  which  theologians,  from  the  earliest  age,  have 
been  accustomed,  in  their  ignorance  and  folly,  to  waste  their 
ingenuity.  The  doctrine  is  avowed,  openly  and  broadly 
avowed,  that  God  cannot,  without  destroying  the  very 
nature  of  the  human  understanding,  put  us  in  possession 
of  an  infallible  system  of  truth.  A  book  or  an  argument 
can  be  inspired  in  no  other  sense  than  as  it  proceeds  from 
a  man  under  the  influence  of  holy  and  devout  sensibilities, 
and  contains  the  results  of  his  reflection — in  the  develop- 
ment of  which  the  Almighty  cannot  protect  him  from  error 
— upon  the  facts  of  his  own  experience.  The  Pilgrim's 
Progress  is,  accordingly.  Divine,  or  the  Word  of  God,  in 
precisely  the  same  sense  in  which  the  Scriptures  are  Divine ; 
and  the  productions  of  Prophets  and  Apostles  are  entitled 
to  no  different  kind  of  respect,  however  different  in  degree, 
from  that  which  attaches  to  the  writings  of  Owen  and  Bax- 
ter and  Howe.  Theology,  in  every  case,  results  from  the 
application  of  logic  and  philosophy  to  Christian  experience; 
it  is  necessarily  a  deduction  from  subjective  processes,  and 
not  the  offspring  of  the  comparison  and  arrangement  of 
doctrines  derived  from  an  external  source.  Being  the  crea- 
ture of  the  human  understanding,  and  tlie  understanding 
being  above  or  below  the  immediate  guidance  and  control 


22  STANDARD    AND   NATURE   OF    RELIGION.         [Sect.  I. 

of  God — we  do  not  know  exactly  where  the  author  places 
it — every  theology  must  be  fallible  and  human,  whether  it 
be  that  of  Paul,  or  Peter,  or  James,  or  John,  or — for  such 
is  the  fearful  sweep  of  the  argument — that  of  Jesus  Christ 
himself 

Having  settled  the  principles  upon  which  theology  must 
be  constructed,  he  proceeds  to  apply  them  in  the  eighth 
chapter,  with  remorseless  havoc,  to  the  i)opular  faith  of 
his  age  and  country.  His  next  step  is  to  investigate  the 
grounds  of  religious  fellowship — an  investigation  which 
turns  out  to  be  a  spirited  and  earnest  assault  upon  creeds 
and  confessions.  AYhen  the  Bible  is  gone,  these  beggarly 
children  of  the  understanding  can,  of  course,  show  no 
cause  why  sentence  of  death  should  not  be  pronounced 
upon  them.  The  tenth  chapter,  which  is  a  sort  of  summary 
of  all  his  previous  speculations,  discusses  the  grounds  of 
certainty  in  reference  to  spiritual  truth,  which  are  resolved 
partly  into  our  own  consciousness,  or  immediate  knowledge 
of  its  reality,  and  partly  into  the  consciousness  of  other 
similarly  inspired  people.  The  eleventh  chapter,  on  the 
significancy  of  the  past,  seems  to  us  to  be  a  logical  append- 
age of  the  seventh  or  eighth,  mercifully  intended  to  relieve 
our  minds  from  the  despondency  and  gloom  which  were 
likely  to  over^^•llelra  them  on  account  of  the  loss  of  the 
Bible,  and  the  feebleness  and  imperfection  of  the  instrument 
which  we  must  use  in  its  place  in  "realizing"  a  system  of 
faith.  After  all,  he  tells  us,  among  earnest  and  awakened 
minds  there  is  no  danger  of  miscarriage.  Error  is  the 
fiction  of  bigotry  rather  than  a  stern  and  sober  reality.  All 
contradictions  and  discordancies  of  opinion  are  only  the 
divergencies  or  polar  extremities  of  some  higher  unity  of 
truth,  in  which  they  are  blended  and  reconciled,  as  the 
mnnberless  antagonisms  of  nature  contribute  to  the  order 
and  harmony  of  the  universe.  The  progress  of  Theology 
depends  upon  the  success  of  the  effort  to  discover  those 
higher  realities  in  M'hich  heresy  and  orthodoxy  sweetly 
unite,  and   hence  all  opposition  to  error  and  zeal  for  the 


'^s 


Sect.  L]         AN   EXTERNAL   STANDARD   VINDICATED.  23 

truth,  overlooking  the  important  fact  that  they  are  different 
phases  of  the  same  thing — that  error,  in  other  words,  is 
only  a  modification  of  truth — are  very  wicked  and  indecent. 

The  relation  between  Philosophy  and  Theology  is  the 
subject  of  the  last  chapter,  in  which  he  undertakes  to  vin- 
dicate himself  from  the  anticipated  charge  of  Rationalism. 
How  successful  he  has  been  we  shall  see  hereafter;  but  one 
thing  is  certain,  his  Rationalism  has  but  little  tendency  to 
exalt  the  understanding.  In 'the  pictures  Avliich  he  occa- 
sionally draws  of  a  perfect  Christian  state,  this  perverse  and 
unruly  faculty,  it  seems,  is  to  be  held  in  abeyance ;  the  soul 
is  to  be  all  eye,  all  vision,  everlastingly  employed  in  the 
business  of  looking,  so  completely  absorbed  in  the  rapture 
of  its  scenes  that  it  cannot  descend  to  the  cold  and  barren 
formalities  of  thought.  But  while  the  understanding  is 
degraded,  another  element  of  our  being  is  unduly  promoted. 
Throughout  the  volume  we  find  attributed  to  sympathy 
the  effect,  in  producing  and  developing  the  Divine  life, 
which  the  Scriptures  uniformly  ascribe  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Society  and  fellowship  are,  indeed,  the  Holy  Ghost  of  Mr. 
JNIorell's  gospel.  They  beget  us  again  to  a  lively  hope, 
they  refine  and  correct  our  experiences,  they  protect  us  from 
dangerous  error,  they  establish  our  minds  in  the  truth,  and 
through  them  w^e  are  enabled  to  attain  the  stature  of  perfect 
men  in  Christ  Jesus. 

From  this  general  survey  of  the  scope  and  contents  of 
the  book,  it  must  be  obvious  to  the  reader  that  we  are 
called  to  contend  with  a  new  and  most  subtle  form  of  infi- 
delity. The  whole  ground  of  controversy  is  shifted.  The 
end  aimed  at  is  the  same — the  destruction  of  the  Bible  as  a 
Divine  revelation,  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Christian  world 
has  heretofore  been  accustomed  to  use  the  term — but  the 
mode  of  attack  is  entirely  changed.  The  infidels  of  former 
times  impugned  Christianity  either  in  its  doctrines  or  evi- 
dences, but  never  dreamed  of  asserting  that  an  external 
standard  of  faith  was  inconceivable  and  impossible.  Some 
denied  that  it  was  necessary,  as  the  light  of  nature  is  suf- 


24  STANDARD    AND    NATURE    OF    RELIGION.  [Sect.  I. 

ficient  for  all  the  purposes  of  religion ;  the  ground  generally 
taken  being  that  the  Scriptures  were  wanting  in  the  proofs 
by  which  a  Divine  revelation  ought  to  be  authenticated,  or 
that  they  were  self-condemned  in  consequence  of  the  absurd- 
ity and  contradiction  of  their  contents,  or  that  no  proofs 
could  ascertain  to  others  the  reality  of  a  revelation  to  our- 
selves; but  whatever  was  the  point  of  assault,  whether 
miracles,  prophecy  or  doctrines,  the  genuineness  and  authen- 
ticity of  the  records,  the  origin  and  propagation  of  Chris- 
tianity in  the  world  and  its  moral  injfluence  on  society,  it 
was  always  assumed  that  there  was  sense  in  the  proposition 
which  affirmed  the  Bible  to  be  a  Divine  and  authoritative 
standard  of  faith.  Elaborate  apologies  for  it,  under  this 
extraordinary  character,  Avere  deemed  worthy  of  the  powers 
and  learning  of  the  most  gifted  members  of  the  race.  But 
Mr.  IMorell  takes  a  widely  different  position.  He  under- 
takes to  demonstrate,  by  a  strictly  a  priori  argument,  drawn 
from  the  nature  of  the  mind  and  of  religion,  that  a  revealed 
theology  is  a  psychological  absurdity.  His  design  is,  from 
the  philosophy  of  Christian  experience,  to  demolish  the 
foundations  of  Christianity  itself.  His  method  requires 
him  to  attack  neither  miracles,  prophecy  nor  doctrines ;  you 
may  believe  them  all,  provided  you  do  not  regard  them  as 
proving  the  Bible  to  be  a  rule  of  faith,  nor  receive  them  on 
the  ground  that  they  are  attested  by  the  seal  of  Heaven. 
In  the  application  of  his  boasted  reflective  method  he  has 
plunged  into  the  depths  of  consciousness  and  fetched  from 
its  secret  recesses  the  materials  for  proving  that,  in  the  very 
nature  of  the  case,  every  system  of  doctrine  not  only  is,  but 
must  be,  human  in  its  form  and  texture.  It  is  on  this 
ground  that  we  charge  him  with  infidelity.  He  takes  away 
the  Bible,  and  w^e  deliberately  assert  that,  when  that  is 
gone,  all  is  lost.  He  talks,  indeed,  of  his  intuitions  and 
fellowship  and  sympathy  and  his  all-powerful  organon  of 
rcflecticMi,  but  when  he  proposes  these  as  a  substitute  for  the 
lively  oracles  of  God,  our  minds  labour  for  a  greater  ability 
of  (k'spising  than    they   have  ever    had    occasion   to  exert 


Sect.  I.]         AN    EXTERNAL   STANDARD    VINDICATED.  25 

before.  Let  the  authority  of  the  Bible  be  destro}'ed,  and 
Christianity  must  soon  perish  from  the  earth.  Put  its  doc- 
trines upon  any  other  ground  than  a  "thus  saith  the  Lord," 
and  every  one  of  them  will  soon  be  denied,  and  from  the 
dim  territory  of  feeling  in  which  Mr.  Morell  has  placed  reli- 
gion we  shall  soon  cease  to  hear  any  definite  reports  of  God. 
What  has  been  the  effect  upon  himself  since  he  has  declined 
to  receive  his  theology  from  the  Bible?  How  many  of  the 
doctrines  which  he  was,  no  doubt,  taught  in  his  infancy  and 
childhood  has  he  been  able  to  "realize"  by  his  own  method 
of  construction?  The  plan  of  his  work  has  not  required 
him  to  treat  of  particular  articles  of  faith,  but  from  occa- 
sional glimpses  which  we  catch,  it  is  easy  to  collect  that  his 
creed  is  anything  but  evangelical.  The  doctrine  of  the 
incarnation,  for  example,  is  reduced  to  nothing  but  "the 
realization  of  divine  perfection  in  humanity."  "We  need," 
says  the  author,^  "to  have  the  highest  conceptions  of  divine 
justice  and  mercy,  and  the  highest  type  of  human  resigna- 
tion and  duty  realized  in  an  historical  fact,  such  as  we  can 
ever  gaze  upon  with  wonder  andi  delight;  not  till  then  do 
they  become  mighty  to  touch  the  deepest  springs  of  our 
moral  being."  Jesus  is,  accordingly,  represented  as  a  fin- 
ished model  of  ideal  excellence,  combining  in  his  own  per- 
son all  that  is  pure  and  lovely  and  sublime,  a  living  em- 
bodiment of  the  moral  abstractions  which,  it  seems,  are 
powerless  to  aflFect  the  heart  until  they  are  reduced  to  "an 
historical  and  concrete  reality,"  and  which  then,  as  if  by  an 
electric  shock  or  a  wizard's  spell,  can  stir  the  depths  of  our 
nature,  rouse  our  dormant  energies  and  inspire  us  with 
zeal  to  imitate  what  we  are  obliged  to  admire.  Hence  the 
whole  mystery  of  godliness — of  the  Word  made  flesh — is  a 
very  simple  aifair;  it  is  just  God's  giving  us  a  pattern  to 
copy.  This  is  what  reflection  makes  of  it  from  the  intui- 
tions of  religion  without  the  Bible.  Justification  by  faith, 
the  articulus  stantis  aut  cadentis  ecclesice — "  the  very  life- 
spring,"  as  Mr.  Morell  admits,^  "  of  the  Beformation  " — 
1  Page  241.  ^  Page  253. 


26  STANDARD    AND    NATURE    OF    RELIGION.  [Sect.  I. 

fares  no  better  in  his  hands  as  it  passes,  through  his  con- 
structive method,  from  the  region  of  experience  to  that  of 
doctrine.  It  is  not  a  little  remarkable,  too,  and  sets  this 
method  in  a  very  unfavourable  light,  that  while  our  author 
professes  to  have  the  same  "  moral  idea  "  with  Lutlier  and 
the  Reformers,  his  statement  of  it  as  a  doctrine  is  precisely 
opposite  to  theirs.  Total  depravity,  and  the  consequent  ne- 
cessity of  regeneration,  he  must,  to  be  consistent,  deny,  as 
his  theory  requires  that  religious  sensibility,  even  in  our 
fallen  state,  should  be  viewed  as  an  original  faculty  of  the 
soul;  and  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  volume 
there  is  not  a  single  passage  wliich  even  remotely  squints 
at  the  doctrine  of  atonement  in  the  sense  of  a  satisfaction 
to  the  justice  of  God  for  the  guilt  of  men.  What,  then,  of 
real  Christianity  does  he  believe?     Echo  answers.  What? 

These  specimens  are  sufficient  to  show  what  success 
crowns  the  effi)rts  of  our  author  in  constructing  a  theology 
without  the  Bible.  We  want  no  better  illustration  of  what 
is  likely  to  become  of  our  religion  when  we  give  up  an 
external  standard  for  the  dim  intuitions  of  inspired  philos- 
ophers. We  are  not,  however,  without  other  lessons  of 
experience,  which  Mr.  Morell  must  admit  to  be  applicable. 
Upon  his  principles,  the  construction  of  the  universe  is  a 
process  exactly  analogous  to  the  construction  of  a  creed. 
The  ontological  systems  of  the  German  masters  may,  accord- 
ingly, be  taken  as  a  fair  sample  of  what  reflection  is  able 
to  achieve  in  the  science  of  world-making;  and,  judging 
from  them,  we  can  form  something  more  than  a  conjecture 
of  the  extravagance  and  folly  which  will  be  palmed  upon 
us  for  the  pure  and  wholesome  doctrines  of  the  Cross,  should 
the  same  method  be  admitted  into  the  department  of 
Christian  theology.  It  would  be  sheer  insanity  to  suppose 
that  it  will  make  less  havoc  of  our  creeds  than  it  has  made 
of  nature,  of  the  soul  and  God.  Upon  one  thing  Ave  might 
count  witli  certainty — the  being  speedily  overwhelmed  with 
a  species  of  Pantheism,  in  which  all  sense  of  duty  and  reli- 
gion would  perish.    The  fatalism  of  Mohammed  has  the  merit 


Sect.  I.]         AN    EXTERNAL   STANDARD   VINDICATED.  27 

of  being  consistent,  but  the  transcendental  philosophy,  as 
if  impelled  by  an  irresistible  instinct  to  contradictions  and 
absurdity,  makes  its  boast,  in  one  breath,  of  the  demonstra- 
tion of  the  essential  and  indestructible  freedom  of  man  as 
its  greatest  triumph,  and  in  the  next  does  not  scruple  to 
deduce  the  contingent,  finite  and  variable  from  their  neces- 
sary relations  to  the  absolute,  infinite  and  eternal.  No  man 
can  turn  from  these  speculations  and  laugh  at  the  Geeta  or 
the  Ramayuna  of  Yalmeeki.  They  teach  us — what  it 
wonld  be  madness  to  disregard — that,  in  relation  to  theo- 
logy, the  real  issue  is  between  the  Bible  and  a  wild  imagina- 
tion "in  endless  mazes  lost;"  between  the  Bible,  in  other 
words,  and  Atheism.  We  do  not  hesitate,  therefore,  to  rank 
Mr.  Morell's  book  in  the  class  of  infidel  publications.  He 
has  assailed  the  very  foundations  of  the  faith  ;  and  in  resist- 
ing his  philosophy  we  are  defending  the  citadel  of  Chris- 
tianity from  the  artful  machinations  of  a  traitor,  who,  with 
honeyed  words  of  friendship  and  allegiance  upon  his  tongue, 
is  in  actual  treaty  to  deliver  it  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy 
of  God  and  man. 

Entertaining  these  opinions  of  the  character  and  tendency 
of  the  work,  we  shall  make  no  apology  for  entering  with 
great  freedom  into  a  critical  estimate  of  its  merits.  It  is, 
perhaps,  only  the  first-fruits  of  what  we  may  yet  expect 
from  larger  importations  of  the  same  philosophy  into 
Britain  and  America,  and,  as  is  generally  the  case  with  first- 
fruits,  it  is  probably  the  best  of  its  kind.  We  apprehend 
that  no  man  who  shall  undertake  a  similar  work  will  be 
able  to  bring  to  it  a  larger  variety  of  resources,  a  more  pro- 
found acquaintance  with  ancient  and  modern  speculations, 
a  nicer  critical  sagacity  or  an  intenser  power  of  reflection, 
than  have  fallen  to  the  lot  of  Mr.  Morell ;  and  we  are 
glad  that  it  is  a  man  thus  eminently  gifted,  the  great  hiero- 
phant  of  German  mysteries,  and  not  the  humble  and  con- 
temptible retailer  of  oracles  hawked  about  as  divine  only 
because  they  defy  all  eifort  to  understand  them,  who  has 
brouti-ht  on  the  first  serious  collision  in  the  field  of  English 


28  STANDARD    AND    NATURE    OF    RELIGION.  [Sect.  I. 

literature  betwixt  evangelical  religion  and  the  new  discov- 
eries in  metaphysics.  The  vigour  of  his  assault  may  be 
taken  as  a  fair  specimen  of  the  power  and  resources  of  the 
enemy ;  and  we  rejoice  in  being  able  to  say  that  whatever 
vague  and  undefined  fears  may  have  floated  through  our 
minds  for  the  security  of  our  faith  while  the  conflict  was'  yet 
at  a  distance,  and  the  ^proportions  of  the  foe  unduly  magni- 
fied by  the  fogs  and  mists  through  which  he  was  contem- 
plated, they  have  turned  out  to  be,  upon  the  first  demonstra- 
tion of  his  real  dimensions  and  his  skill  in  battle,  like  the 
shudder  and  dismay  conjured  up  by  a  moonlight  ghost. 

The  book  may  be  considered  in  the  double  light  of  a 
philosophy  and  an  argument,  the  philosophy  supplying  the 
premises  of  the  argument.  We  intend  to  examine  it  in 
both  aspects;  and  as  in  every  instance  of  ratiocination  the 
first  and  most  obvious  inquiry  is  in  regard  to  the  validity 
of  the  reasoning.  Does  it  hold,  do  the  premises  contain  the 
conclusion?  we  shall  pursue  in  the  present  case  the  natural 
order  of  thought,  and  inquire  into  the  merits  of  the  argu- 
ment before  we  investigate  the  claims  of  the  philosophy. 
We  hope  to  show  that  there  is  a  double  escape  from  the 
infidelity  and  mysticism  into  which  the  author  would  conduct 
us — one  through  the  inconclusivcness  of  his  reasoning,  the 
other  through  the  falsehood  or  unsoundness  of  his  premises. 
He  is  signally  at  fault  in  both  his  logic  and  his  philosophy. 

The  fundamental  proposition  of  the  treatise  in  which  its 
preliminary  speculations  were  designed  to  terminate,  and 
upon  which  its  subsequent  deductions  are  dependent  for  all 
the  value  they  possess,  is,  that  a  valid  theology  is  never  the 
gift  of  Heaven,  but  is  always  the  creature  of  the  human 
understanding.  This  is  assumed  as  a  settled  point  in  the 
last  six  chapters  of  the  book.  The  seventh,  which  devel- 
ops the  process  by  which,  in  conformity  with  the  laws  of 
mind,  wc  are  able  to  construct  a  theology  for  ourselves,  evi- 
dently takes  it  for  granted  that  this  is  a  thing  which  we  have 
to  do  for  ourselves,  unless  the  author  intended  tlicse  discus- 
sions as  a  mere  exhibition  of  his  skill,  an  amusing  play  of 


Sect.  I.]         AN    EXTERNAL   STANDARD   VINDICATED.  29 

ingenuity  and  fancy,  like  Ferguson's  Natural  History  of 
Society,  or  Smith's  Theory  of  the  Origin  of  Language.  If 
God  has  given  us  a  body  of  divinity,  it  is  of  very  little 
consequence  to  speculate  on  what  might  have  taken  place 
had  we  been  left  to  ourselves.  Theology,  in  this  aspect  of 
the  case,  being  reduced  to  the  condition  of  any  other  science, 
perhaps  the  method  described  by  our  author  is,  as  he  asserts 
it  to  be,  the  omly  method  by  which  we  could  successfully 
proceed.  But  the  very  stress  of  the  controversy  turns  upon 
the  question.  Whether  we  have  been  left  to  ourselves  whe- 
ther theology  is  in  fact,  like  all  other  sciences,  the  produc- 
tion of  man,  or  whether  God  has, framed  it  for  us  ready  to 
our  hands?  The  same  assumption  in  regard  to  the  human 
origin  of  theology  pervades  all  the  speculations  of  the  eighth 
chapter,  professedly  on  Fellowship,  but  really  on  Creeds  and 
Confessions.  If  there  be  a  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints, 
it  may  be  our  duty  to  contend  for  it,  and  to  withdraw  from 
those  who  consent  not  to  wholesome  words,  even  the  words 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the  doctrine  which  is 
according  to  godliness,  and  to  reject  those  after  the  first  and 
second  admonition  who  bring  in  damnable  heresies.  If 
there  be  such  a  thing  as  a  form  of  sound  words,  there  may 
be  an  obligation  to  teach  it,  and  hence  an  analogy  betwixt 
the  Church  and  the  School,  in  consequence  of  which  believers 
may  be  termed  disciples,  ministers  teachers,  and  Christ 
the  great  Prophet  of  all.  These  things  cannot  be  gainsaid 
until  we  have  something  more  than  assertion  that  there  is 
no  authoritative  type  of  doctrine  into  which  we  ought  to  be 
cast.  As  to  the  chapter  on  Certitude,  that  never  could  have 
been  written  by  a  man  in  whose  philosophy  it  was  even 
dreamed  of  that  there  might  be  a  ground  of  assurance  in 
a  Divine  testimony  fully  equal  to  dim  and  misty  intuitions, 
which  require  to  be  corrected  by  the  generic  consciousness 
of  the  race.  Let  it  be  admitted  that  God  has  given  us  a 
theology,  and  evinced  it  to  be  His  by  signs  and  wonders  or 
any  species  of  infallible  proofs,  and  we  certainly  need  no 
firmer  basis  for  our  faith  than  that  the  mouth  of  the  Lord 


30  STANDARD   AND    NATURE   OF   RELIGION.  [Skct.  I. 

lias  spoken.  All  such  sijeculations  as  those  of  our  author 
are  darkening  counsel  by  words  without  knowledge.  The 
relation,  too,  in  which  philosophy  stands  to  theology — the 
subject  of  the  last  chapter  of  the  book — is  materially 
changed  when  it  is  denied  that  philosophy  is  the  organon 
to  form  it,  or  when  the  whole  question  concerning  the  triith 
or  falsehood  of  any  doctrinal  system  is  made  a  question  of 
authority,  and  not  a  question  of  abstract  speculation. 

It  is  hence  obvious  that  the  human  origin  of  theology  is 
the  soul  of  this  system  ;  it  pervades  all  the  author's  specula- 
tions. Without  it  one-half  of  his  book  falls  to  the  ground, 
and  the  conclusions  which  palpably  contravene  the  popular 
faith  are  strij)ped  of  all  plausibility  and  consistency.  As  a 
logical  production  his  entire  treatise  is  a  failure  unless  this 
principle  can  be  established. 

Now,  has  it  been  proved?  Has  the  author  anywhere 
demonstrated  that  theology,  as  contradistinguished  from 
religion,  must  necessarily  be  human,  and  can  possess  no 
other  authority  but  that  which  attaches  to  it  from  the  laws 
of  thought  ?  Or,  has  he  even  succeeded  in  showing  that  as  a 
historical  fact  it  is  human,  though  it  might  have  been  other- 
wise, and  therefore  subject  to  the  same  criticisms  to  which 
every  human  production  is  amenable  ?  Let  it  be  remem- 
bered that  the  real  issue  betwixt  himself  and  the  popular 
faith  is.  Whether  or  not  God  has  communicated  in  the  lan- 
guage of  man  a  perfect  logical  exposition  of  all  the  truths 
which  in  every  stage  of  its  religious  development  the  human 
mind  is  capable  of  experiencing.  Islv.  Morell  denies ;  the 
popular  faith  affirms.  If  he  can  make  good  his  negative, 
then  we  must  create  theology  for  ourselves ;  his  speculations 
upon  that  point  become  natural  and  proper,  and  all  the  con- 
clusions which  are  subsequently  drawn  from  them  in  rela- 
tion to  fellowship,  certitude,  and  the  precise  office  of  philos- 
ophy with  respect  to  systems  of  Christian  doctrine,  become 
consistent  and  legitimate.  If,  on  the  contrar}^,  he  fails  to 
do  so,  then  all  these  speculations  are  premature,  they  have 
no  solid  foundation  in  truth ;  and  though  they  may  still  be 


Sect.  I.]         AN   EXTERNAL   STANDARD   VINDICATED.  31 

interesting  as  a  new  and  curious  department  of  fiction,  they 
should  drop  the  name  of  philosophy  or  couple  it  with  that 
of  romance,  and  assume  a  title  which  would  indicate  the 
fact  that  their  logic  is  purely  hypothetical.  Has  he  suc- 
ceeded, or  has  he  failed  ?  This  question  we  shall  be  able  to 
answer  by  considering  wdiat  the  exigencies  of  his  argument 
demanded,  and  the  manner  in  which  he  has  addressed  him- 
self to  the  task  of  meeting  them — by  comparing,  in  other 
words,  what  he  had  to  do  with  what  he  has  done.  What, 
then,  is  necessary  in  order  to  prove  that  no  such  Divine 
communication  as  the  popular  faith  maintains  has  ever  been 
made  to  men?  There  are,  obviously,  only  two  lines  of 
reasoning  that  can  be  pursued  in  an  argument  upon  this 
subject.  It  must  either  be  shown  a  priori  that  such  a 
Divine  communication  is  impossible,  involving  a  contradic- 
tion to  the  very  nature  of  theology,  or  a  posteriori  that 
such  a  Divine  communication  as  a  matter  of  fact  never  has 
been  made,  or,  what  upon  the  maxim,  de  nan  apparentibus, 
etc.,  is  equivalent  to  that,  never  has  been  proved.  This  last 
proposition  may  be  established,  in  turn,  either  by  showing 
that  no  testimony  and  no  evidence  can  authenticate  such  a 
communication ;  or  that  the  evidence,  in  the  given  case,  falls 
short  of  Avhat  ought  to  be  afforded ;  or  that  it  is  set  aside 
by  countervailing  evidence ;  or  that  there  is  positive  proof 
that  some  other  method  has  been  adopted.  This  seems  to 
us  to  be  a  true  statement  of  the  logical  condition  of  the 
question.  Mr.  Morell  was  bound  to  prove  either  that  a 
Divine  revelation,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term,  is 
impossible,  a  psychological  absurdity,  or  that  no  book  pro- 
fessing to  be  a  revelation  is  w^orthy  of  credit ;  there  can  be, 
or  there  has  been,  none.  This  being  the  state  of  the  con- 
troversy, let  us  proceed  to  examine  how  he  has  acquitted 
himself  in  disposing  of  these  points,  the  last  of  which  alone 
has  given  rise  to  a  larger  body  of  literature  than  perhaps 
any  other  subject  in  the  world. 

The  premises  of  the  argument,  in  both  aspects,  whether 
a  priori   or  a  posteriori,  are  contained  in  the  chapters  on 


'  32  STANDARD   AND   NATURE    OF    RELIGION.         [Si:cT.  I. 

Kevelation  and  Inspiration.  It  was  evidently  the  design 
of  these  chapters  to  develop  a  theory  Mhich  should  explode 
the  vulgar  notions  in  relation  to  the  Bible  as  at  once 
absurd  in  a  philosophical  point  of  view  and  destitute  of 
evidence  as  a  matter  of  fact.  His  whole  view  of  inspira- 
tion he  represents  as  "a  protest  and  an  argument"^  against 
"the  formal  use  of  the  letter  of  Scripture,"  which  is  made 
by  "  those  who  ground  their  theology,  professedly  at  least, 
upon  an  induction  of  individual  passages,  as  though  each 
passage,  independently  of  the  spirit  of  the  whole,  were  of 
Divine  authority."  "To  suppose  that  we  should  gain  the 
slightest  advantage"  by  accuracy  of  definitions  and  con- 
sistency of  reasoning  on  the  part  of  the  sacred  writers, 
"implies,"  he  informs  us,^  "an  entire  misapjirehension  of 
what  a  revelation  really  is,  and  of  what  is  the  sole  method 
by  which  it  is  possible  to  construe^  a  valid  theology.  An 
actual  revelation  can  only  be  made  to  the  intuitional  faculty, 
and  a  valid  theology  can  only  be  constructed  by  giving  a 
formal  expression  to  the  intuitions  thus  granted."  We 
understand  these  passages,  especially  when  taken  in  connec- 
tion Avith  the  spirit  of  the  whole  discussion,  as  distinctly 
asserting  the  projaosition  that  theology,  as  a  formal  state- 
ment of  doctrine,  can  never  be  divinely  communicated,  and 
that  upon  the  ground  that  it  involves  elements  which  are 
incompatible  with  the  very  nature  of  revelation — a  revealed 
theology  being  a  contradiction  in  terms.  Clearly,  if  "the 
giving  of  a  formal  expression  to  the  intuitions"  of  religion 
be  the  sole  method  by  which  it  is  possible  to  construct  it, 
there  is  no  place  for  an  authoritative  standard  of  faith. 

Now  does  the  author's  theory  of  revelation,  admitting  it 
to  be  true,  preclude  the  possibility  of  a  Divine  theology  ? 
AVe  shall  not  deny — for  we  have  no  disposition  to  dispute 
about  a  word — that  it  is  inconsistent  with  a  revealed  theology, 
in  the  author^s  sense  of  the  term.  We  may  here  take  occa- 
sion to  say  that  much  of  the  impression  which  his  reasoning 
makes  upon  the  mind  of  his  readers  is  due  to  the  ambi- 
1  Page  205.  '  Page  175. 


Sect.  I.]         AN    EXTERNAL   STANDARD   VINDICATED.  33 

guity  of  language.  They,  from  old  associations  and  familiar 
usage,  mean  one  thing  by  revelation,  and  he  another;  and 
it  is  hard  to  keep  distinctly  in  view  that  conclusions  which 
may  be  legitimate  in  his  sense  may  not  be  legitimate  in 
theirs.  If  Mr.  Morell  chooses  to  restrict  the  application 
of  the  term  to  the  subjective  processes  by  which  the  mind 
is  brought  into  contact  with  spiritual  realities,  and  then 
infer  that  an  external  standard  of  faith  cannot  be  a  revela- 
tion, the  inference  may  be  just ;  but  it  no  more  concludes 
against  the  reality  or  possibility  of  such  a  standard  than  to 
restrict  the  term  animal  exclusively  to  quadrupeds,  and 
then  infer  that  neither  men  nor  birds  were  animals,  con- 
cludes against  the  truth  of  their  existence  or  their  possession 
of  life.  What  Mr.  Morell  undertakes  to  settle  is  not  a 
question  of  words  and  names,  not  whether  the  Bible  shall 
receive  this  title  or  that  (no  one  dreams  that  it  is  a  spir- 
itual vision,  or  any  special  mode  of  intelligence),  but 
whether  God  can  communicate,  in  writing  or  in  any  other 
form,  a  perfect  logical  exposition  of  those  very  intuitions 
which  he  makes  it  the  office  of  revelation  to  imj)art.  That 
such  a  Divine  communication  is,  in  the  nature  of  the  case, 
impossible — not  that  it  cannot  be  called  by  a  given  name — 
is  what  he  represents  his  theory  of  revelation  as  necessarily 
involving ;  and  that,  if  it  does  not  involve,  it  is  not  per- 
tinent to  the  argument. 

This  theory  is  designed  to  give  an  answer  to  the  question. 
In  what  manner  does  a  man  become  a  Christian?  The 
essential  elements  included  in  that  form  of  man^  religious 
life  which  he  denominates  the  Christian  consciousness 
having  been  previously  enumerated,  he  proceeds,  in  his 
account  of  revelation,  to  describe  the  "process  by  which 
such  phenomena  of  man's  interior  being  are  produced — the 
secret  link  which  unites  them  with  an  outward  causality, 
and  the  laws  by  which  they  are  brought  into  existence, 
regulated,  and  finally  developed  to  their  full  maturity."  It 
is  only  "  in  relation  to  the  method  by  which  it  is  commu- 
nicated to  the  human  mind"  that  Christianity  can  be  prop- 

VoL.  III.— 3 


34  STAXDARD   AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.         [Skct.  I. 

erly  designated  "as  a  revelation  from  God."*  That  is, 
if  we  understand  the  author,  it  is  the  office  of  revehxtion 
to  excite  the  emotions  which  are  characteristic  and  distinct- 
ive of  the  religion  of  Jesus.  It  has  reference,  therefore, 
exclusively  to  what,  in  common  language,  would  be  styled 
experimental  religion,  and  includes  nothing  but  the  means 
by  which  the  state  of  heart  is  engendered,  which  entitles  a 
man  to  be  considered  as  a  real,  in  contradistinction  from  a 
formal,  believer.  But  as  religion  consists,  essentially,  in 
emotions,  and  emotions  are  dependent  upon  that  form  of 
intelligence  which  supplies  the  objects  adapted  to  awaken 
them — a  direct  correspondency  always  subsisting  between 
the  intellectual  and  emotional  activity — the  question  arises, 
To  which  faculty  are  we  indebted  for  the  objects  that  aAvaken 
religious  emotions?  We  must  know  them,  they  must  be 
present  to  the  mind,  or  no  affections  can  be  excited ;  through 
what  form  of  intelligence,  then,  do  we  become  cognizant  of 
spiritual  realities?     The  answer  is.  Intuition. 

"  In  considei'ing,  then,  under  which  of  the  two  great  generic  modes 
of  intelligence  we  have  to  class  the  particular  case  involved  in  the 
idea  of  revelation,  we  can  have  'but  little  hesitation  in  referring  it,  at 
once,  to  the  category  of  intuition.  The  idea  of  a  revelation  is  univer- 
sally considered  to  imply  a  case  of  intelligence  in  which  something  is 
presented  direcfh/  to  the  mind  of  the  subject ;  in  which  it  is  conveyed 
by  the  immediate  agency  of  God  himself;  in  which  our  own  efforts 
would  have  been  unavailing  to  attain  the  same  conceptions ;  in  which 
the  truth  communicated  could  not  have  been  drawn  by  inference  from 
any  data  previously  known  ;  and,  finally,  in  which  the  whole  result  is 
one  lying  beyond  the  reach  of  the  logical  understanding."  ^ 

The  author  then  proceeds  to  run  the  parallel  betwixt 
this  account  of  revelation  and  intuition  in  its  lowest  form — 
that  of  external  perception ;  and  finding  a  perfect  corre- 
spondence, he  does  not  hesitate  to  rank  them  as  kindred 
species  of  the  same  mode  of  intellectual  activity.  But,  to 
make  assurance  doubly  sure,  he  undertakes  to  show  that 
revelation  cannot  be  addressed  to  the  understanding — "that 
the  whole  of  the  logical  processes  of  the  human  mind  are 
1  Page  122.  2  Page  126. 


Sect.  I.]  AN    EXTERNAL    STANDARD    VINDICATED.  35 

such  that  the  idea  of  a  revelation  is  altogether  incompatible 
with  them ;  that  they  jire  in  no  sense  open  to  its  influence, 
and  that  they  can  neither  be  improved  nor  assisted  by  it."^ 
His  meaning  is  that  no  new  original  elements  of  knowledge, 
or,  as  Locke  would  call  them,  no  new  simple  ideas,  can  be 
imparted  to  the  mind  by  definition,  analysis  or  reasoning. 
He  regards  revelation  as  a  source  of  original  and  peculiar 
ideas,  like  the  eye  or  the  ear,  or  what  Hutcheson  felicitously 
styles  the  internal  senses  of  the  mind.  "  The  object  of  a 
revelation  is  to  bring  us  altogether  into  another  and  higher 
region  of  actual  experience,  to  increase  our  mental  vision, 
to  give  us  new  data  from  which  we  may  draw  new  infer- 
ences ;  and  all  this  lies  quite  apart  from  the  activity  of  the 
logical  faculty."^ 

The  author  still  further,  though  not  more  plainly,  de- 
velops his  views  in  the  answer  he  returns  to  the  question, 
"  Could  not  a  revelation  from  God  consist  in  an  exposition 
of  truth,  made  to  us  by  the  lips  or  from  the  pen  of  an 
inspired  messenger,  that  exposition  coming  distinctly  under 
the  idea  of  a  logical  explication  of  doctrines,  which  it  is 
for  mankind  to  receive  as  sent  to  us  on  Divine  authority  ?" 
Let  us  hear  him  upon  this  point : 

"  Now  this  is  a  case  of  considerable  complexity,  and  one  which  we 
must  essay  as  clearly  as  possible  to  unravel.  First  of  all,  then,  we 
have  no  doubt  whatever  but  that  there  have  been  agents  commis- 
sioned by  God  to  bring  mankind  to  a  proper  conception  of  Divine 
truth  ^nd  comprehension  of  the  Divine  will.  But  now  let  us  look  a 
little  more  closely  into  their  real  mission,  and  consider  the  means  by 
which  alone  it  was  possible  for  them  to  fulfil  it. 

"These  Divine  messengers,  we  will  suppose,  address  their  fellow- 
men  in  the  words  and  phrases  they  are  accustomed  to  hear,  and  seek 
in  this  way  to  expound  to  them  the  truth  of  Grod.  If  we  imagine 
oiu'selves,  then,  to  be  the  listeners,  it  is  needless  to  say  that  so  long 
as  they  treat  of  ideas  which  lie  icithm  the  range  of  our  present  expe- 
rience, we  should  be  well  able  at  once  to  comprehend  them,  and  to 
judge  of  the  grounds  on  which  they  urge  them  upon  our  attention. 
But  it  is  manifest  that  such  a  discourse  as  I  describe  could  in  no  proper 
sense  be  termed  a  revelation.     So  long  as  the  Divine  teacher  keeps 

»  Page  131.  ^  Page  133. 


86  STANDARD    AND    NATL'RH    OF    KKLIGIOX.  [Si:CT.  I. 

witliiii  the  ranjre  of  our  jjresont  iiit<'ll<(tual  oxperionce,  he  miirht 
itvU'od  tlirow  things  into  a  new  light,  he  iniglit  point  out  more  accu- 
rately their  connection,  he  might  show  us  at  once  their  importance 
and  their  logical  consistency,  hut  all  this  would  not  amount  to  n  revr- 
hitloii,  it  would  give  us  no  linmidintr  manifestation  of  truth  from 
(lod.  it  woiild  offer  no  conee|>tions  lying  heyond  the  range  of  our  pres- 
ent data,  it  would  quite  fail  in  hringing  us  into  contact  with  new  real- 
ities, nor  would  it  at  all  extend  the  sweep  of  our  mental  vision.  Mere 
exposition  always  ]msii])pniies  some  familiarity  with  the  suhject  in 
hand  ;  one  idea  lias  always,  in  .such  a  ca.se,  to  he  exjjlained  by  another; 
but  suppo.«ing  there  to  be  an  entire  blindness  of  mind  upon  the  whole 
question,  then  it  is  manifest  that  all  mere  logical  definition  and  expli- 
cation is  for  the  time  entirely  thrown  away. 

'"Illustrations  of  this  are  as  numerous  as  are  the  sciences  or  the 
subjects  of  human  research.  Let  a  man,  for  example,  totally  unac- 
quainted with  the  matter,  hear  another  converse  with  the  greatest 
clearness  about  differential  quantities  in  physics  or  mathematics,  how 
much  of  the  explanation  would  he  be  able  to  comprehend  ?  He  has 
not  yet  the  experiences  of  space,  number  or  motion  on  which  the  intelli- 
gibleness  of  the  whole  dejiends,  and  in  want  of  these  the  whole  of 
the  explanations  offered  are  involved  in  the  darkest  ob.scurity.  Take 
up  any  other  subject,  such  as  biology,  ethics  or  metaphysics  in  their 
higher  and  more  recondite  branches.  Exi)lication  here  is  of  no  avail, 
unless  the  mind  first  realize  for  itself,  and  reproduce  in  its  own  think- 
ing, the  fundamental  conceptions  of  the  teacher.  TNTiat  is  true  of 
perceptive  teaching  in  the  case  of  the  infant  is  true  in  a  modified 
sense  of  all  human  education,  to  the  most  advanced  stage  of  intelli- 
gence. You  must  in  every  instance  alike  take  proper  means  to 
awaken  the  power  of  vision  within,  to  furni.-*h  direct  experiences  to  the 
mind  ;  in  l)rief  to  give  clear  intuitions  of  the  iJrmrnts  of  tnith,  before 
you  can  produce  any  effect  by  the  most  complete  process  of  defining 
or  exjtlanation. 

'•  Ijet  us  return,  then,  to  the  supposed  ca.se  of  the  inspired  feacher, 
and  imx'ced  with  our  analysis  of  the  conditions  that  are  necessiiry  to 
his  becoming  the  medium  of  a  revelation,  proi)erly  so  called.  We 
have  seen  that  if  he  always  kept  within  the  region  of  oxir  jiresent 
cxiterience,  there  would  Ik'  no  fresh  ri'vclation  made  to  us  at  all ;  but 
imw  let  us  imagine  him  to  trnuscnul  the  jiresent  sphere  of  our  mental 
vision,  it  is  evident  from  what  1  have  first  .«aid  that  in  such  a  case  we 
slmuld  be  by  no  means  in  a  condition  to  comi)rchend  his  meaning,  on 
the  sullpo^ition,  of  course,  that  he  was  to  confine  himself  to  vure 
crpiisitiini.  The  only  way  in  which  he  could  give  us  a  revelation  of 
truth  hitht'rto  unrealized  woidd  be  by  becoming  t^ic  agent  of  elevat- 
ing our  inward  religious  consciousness  uji  to  the  same  or  a  similar 


Sect.  I.]  AN    EXTERNAL   STANDARD    VINDICATED.  37 

Standard  as  his  own,  which  is  the  same  thing  as  if  we  had  said  that 
all  revelation,  ijroperly  so  called,  can  be  made  to  us  primarily  only  in 
the  form  of  religious  intuition. ' '  ^ 

We  have  now  said  enough  to  put  our  readers  completely 
in  possession  of  the  author's  views  of  revelation.  It  implies 
a  direct  perception  of  spiritual  realities,  a  gazing  upon  eter- 
nal verities,  which,  upon  the  principle  that  the  eye  affects 
the  heart,  produces  those  peculiar  emotions  in  which  the 
essence  of  religion  consists.  It  communicates  to  us  the  ele- 
mental ideas  of  all  religious  knowledge,  the  primary  data, 
without  which  the  science  of  theology  would  be  as  unmean- 
ing as  the  science  of  optics  to  a  man  born  blind.  As  per- 
ception gives  us  all  our  original  and  simple  ideas  of  matter, 
the  moral  sense  our  notions  of  the  good,  taste  our  notions 
of  the  beautiful  and  sublime,  so  revelation  imparts  to  us 
the  ideas  of  God,  of  Christ,  of  redemption  and  of  sin.  The 
subjective  processes  in  all  these  cases  are  the  same.  Nature, 
the  beautiful,  the  good,  are  just  as  truly  and  properly  reve- 
lations as  the  verities  embraced  in  Christian  experience. 
There  was,  however,  in  the  case  of  Christianity,  a  series  of 
"  Divine  arrangements  through  the  medium  of  which  the 
loftiest  and  purest  conceptions  of  truth  were  brought  before 
the  immediate  consciousness  of  the  Apostles,  and  through 
them  of  the  whole  age,  at  a  time,  too,  when  in  other  respects 
the  most  universal  demoralization  abounded  on  every  side."^ 
These  arrangements  the  author  admits  to  be  supernatural, 
the  result  of  a  "  Divine  plan  altogether  distinct  from  the 
general  scheme  of  Providence  as  regards  human  develop- 
ment ;"  but  the  revelation  consequent  upon  them  is  purely 
natural.  Man  was  elevated  to  a  mountain  which  com- 
manded prospects  beyond  the  ordinary  range  of  his  eyes, 
but  the  vision  which  ensued  was  in  strict  obedience  to  the 
laws  of  sight. 

Now  we  ask  our  readers  to  ponder  carefully  this  account 
of  revelation,  and  to  lay  their  fingers  on  the  principle  which 
cither  directly  or  indirectly  proves  that  a  perfect  standard 
1  Pages  134-137.  '  Page  145. 


38  STANDARD    AND    NATURE    OF    RELIGION.  [SECT.  I. 

of  theology  cannot  be  imparted  to  us  by  God,  or  that  any 
and  every  theology  must  be  the  offspring  of  the  human 
understanding.  This  aceount,  we  are  told,  is  at  once  a  pro- 
test and  an  argument  against  the  popular  notions  on  the  sub- 
ject. The  protest  w^e  can  find,  it  is  patent  on  every  page, 
but  the '  argument  we  are  utterly  unable  to  discover.  Does 
it  follow  that  because  religion  as  a  matter  of  experience  is 
Divine,  therefore  theology  as  a  matter  of  science  must  be 
human  ?  Does  it  follow  that  because  God  gives  us  all  the 
direct  and  immediate  cognitions  out  of  which  the  science 
can  be  framed,  therefore  He  is  unable  to  construct  the 
science  Himself?  Does  it  follow  that  because  He  makes 
us  feel  and  see,  therefore  He  is  incompetent  to  describe 
either  our  visions  or  emotions  ?  We  confess  that  our  sin- 
cerest  efforts  cannot  render  palpable  to  our  thinking  faculty 
the  least  incongruity  betwixt  the  notions  of  a  Divine  the- 
ology and  a  revealed  religion  in  the  sense  of  Mr.  Morell. 
For  aught  that  we  can  see  to  the  contrary,  his  whole  psychol- 
ogy might  be  granted ;  all  that  he  says  of  the  understand- 
ing and  intuition,  their  differences  and  relations,  with  his 
whole  scheme  of  revelation,  all  might  be  granted,  and  yet 
nothing  be  conceded  at  all  destructive  of  the  doctrine  that 
we  have  a  faith  ready  developed  to  our  hands  which  we  are 
bound  to  receive  upon  the  authority  of  God.  We  might  no 
longer  call  it  a  revealed  faith,  but  it  Avould  be  none  the  less 
infallible  and  Divine  on  that  account. 

Mr.  Morell  admits  that  man  can  construct  a  theology  for 
himself,  that  "  he  is  able  to  give  a  definite  form  and  scien- 
tific basis  to  his  religious  life,  and  to  the  spiritual  truth 
involved  in  it."  The  intuitions  of  religion,  like  all  other 
intnitions,  can  be  submitted  to  the  operations  of  the  under- 
standing ;  they  can  be  compared,  classified  and  arranged  ; 
they  are  as  really  the  materials  of  a  science  as  the  fiicts  of 
pereejition  or  the  phenomena  of  conscience.  Xow,  what  is 
ther(>  in  the  process  of  constructing  a  science  from  religion 
which  limits  it  exclusively  to  man?  Is  there  any  absurdity 
in  supjjosing  that  God  can  communicate  in  writing  or  in 


Sect.  L]         AX   EXTERNAL   STANDARD    VINDICATED.  39 

some  other  form  a  perfect  logical  exposition  of  all  the  intui- 
tions which  in  every  stage  of  its  religious  history  the  human 
mind  is  capable  of  exj)eriencing  ?  any  absurdity  in  suppos- 
ing that  God  can  do  perfectly  and  infallibly  for  His  weak 
and  ignorant  creatures  what  it  is  conceded  they  can  do  im- 
perfectly and  fallibly  for  themselves  ?  What  is  there  incon- 
ceivable in  God's  giving  a  logical  and  formal  expression  to 
the  religious  mind  of  man  ?  We  do  not  deny  that  a  Divine 
theology,  though  it  might  be  strictly  scientific  in  its  form, 
and  capable  of  the  same  proofs  to  which  all  human  sciences 
appeal,  must  yet  challenge  our  assent  upon  a  higher  ground. 
Tt  is  to  be  received,  not  because  it  accords  witli'our  expe- 
rience, but  because  it  is  the  testimony  of  God.  It  comes 
to  us,  and  must  come  to  us,  with  authority.  It  is  truth, 
because  it  proceeds  from  the  fountain  of  truth.  If  Mr. 
Morell  contends  that  this  peculiarity  removes  it  from  the 
category  of  science,  we  shall  not  dispute  about  a  word ;  all 
that  we  contend  for  is,  that  it  is  and  must  be  a  more  full 
and  complete  representation  of  all  the  phenomena  of  relig- 
ion than  reflection  itself  could  give  with  the  aid  of  the  best 
conceivable  organon  aj^plied  to  intuitions  as  strong,  distinct 
and  clear  as  the  most  definite  percej)tions  of  sense. 

It  is  clear  that  Mr.  Morell,  in  representing  his  scheme  of 
revelation  as  an  a  priori  argument  against  the  possibility 
of  a  Divine  theology,  has  quietly  assumed  that  the  agency 
there  described  is  the  sole  agency  of  the  Deity  in  relation 
to  the  religion  of  His  creatures.  He  seems  to  think  that 
the  Almighty  exhausted  Himself  in  the  production  of 
spiritual  perceptions,  and  therefore  could  not  reduce  them 
to  the  forms  of  the  understanding — that  in  the  process  of 
engendering  religion  he  lost  the  ability  to  describe  it.  But 
where  is  the  proof  that  revelation,  in  our  author's  sense, 
includes  the  whole  agency  of  God?  Not  a  particle  is 
adduced,  and  hence,  as  a  Divine  theology  is  not  inconsistent 
with  a  revealed  religion,  as  there  is  no  shadow  of  contra- 
diction betwixt  them,  and  not  the  slightest  proof  that  the 
revelation  of  religion  is  the  only  form  in  which  God  conde- 


40  STANDARD   AND    NATURE   OF    RELIGION.  [Sect,  I 

scends  to  His  ignorant  and  sinful  creatures,  Mr.  Morell  has 
signally  failed  to  establish,  on  philosophical  grounds,  the 
human  origin  of  theology.  His  premises  do  not  contain 
his  conclusion.  For  aught  that  he  has  alleged  to  the  con- 
trary, we  may  be  as  truly  indebted  to  the  Divine  benignity 
for  a  perfect  and  infallible  standard  of  faith  as  for  those 
other  operations  in  consequence  of  which  we  feel  the  pulsa- 
tions of  the  Christian  life. 

The  only  thing,  indeed,  in  the  whole  chapter  on  Revela- 
tion which  seems  remotely  to  bear  upon  the  subject  is  the 
passage  already  quoted,  in  which  he  states  the  question  only 
to  evade  it.  He  shows,  indeed,  that  a  logical  explication 
of  doctrines  could  not  awaken  ideas  in  a  mind  destitute  of 
the  capacity  to  apprehend  them.  We  may  cheerfully  con- 
cede that  no  painting  can  make  a  blind  man  see,  that  no 
music  can  ravish  a  deaf  man  with  the  rapture  of  its  sounds; 
but  still  the  painting  and  the  music  may  both  exist  and  be 
perfect  in  their  kind.  No  one  claims  for  a  Divine  theology 
the  power  of  making  men  Christians ;  it  is  universally  con- 
ceded that  the  letter  killeth,  but  the  controversy  betwixt 
Mr.  Morell  and  the  popular  faith  is,  whether  that  letter  can 
exist.  It  is  a  poor  evasion  to  say,  because  it  cannot  perform 
an  office  which  no  one  has  ever  thought  of  ascribing  to  it, 
that,  therefore,  it  is  essentially  and  necessarily  inconceivable 
as  a  real  and  substantive  entity.  All  that  our  author  proves 
is,  that  it  cannot  enlighten  ;  that  it  can  impart  no  new 
simple  idea ;  that  it  presupposes  all  the  elemental  germs  of 
thought  which  enter  into  theology,  as  natural  philosophy 
presupposes  the  informations  of  sense,  and  psychology  those 
of  consciousness.  It  supposes,  in  other  words,  that  men 
are  capable  of  religion,  but  it  by  no  means  follows  that 
because  a  Divine  theology  can  neither  create  the  religious 
faculty  nor  immediately  produce  its  appropriate  intuitions, 
therefore  it  cannot  express  them  with  logical  exactness,  nor 
describe  the  objects  on  which  they  are  dependent.  Moral 
philosophy  camiot  originate  a  conscience,  but  it  may  still  be 
a  scientitic  exhibition  of  all  the  operations  of  the  moral 


Sect.  I.]  AN    EXTERNAL    STANDARD    VINDICATED.  41 

nature.  What  Mr.  Morell's  argument  requires  him  to 
prove  is,  that  a  Divine  theology  is  impossible — that  a  science 
of  religion  being  admitted,  that  science  cannot  be  imparted 
to  us  by  God,  it  must,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  be 
human  in  its  origin ;  and  this  proposition  is  not  aifected  by 
the  inadequacy  of  such  a  science  to  accomplish  a  certain 
subjective  effect,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  its  ability  to  do 
this  is  the  condition  of  its  existence. 

But  perhaps  the  proof  we  are  seeking  may  be  found 
in  the  chapter  on  Inspiration.  It  is  the  object  of  that  chap- 
ter to  show  that 

"Inspiration  does  not  imply  anj'thing  generically  new  in  the  actual 
processes  of  the  human  mind  ;  it  does  not  involve  any  form  of  intel- 
ligence essentially  different  from  what  we  already  possess ;  it  indicates 
rather  the  elevation  of  the  religious  consciousness,  and  with  it,  of 
course,  the  power  of  spiritual  vision,  to  a  degree  of  intensity  peculiar 
to  the  individuals  thus  highly  favoured.  We  must  regard  the  whole 
process  of  inspiration,  accordingly,  as  being  in  no  sense  tneclianical, 
but  purely  dynamical ;  involving,  not  a  novel  and  supernatural  faculty, 
but  a  faculty  already  enjoyed,  elevated  supernaturally  to  an  extra- 
ordinary power  and  susceptibility ;  indicating,  in  fact,  an  imvard  nature 
so  perfectly  harmonized  to  the  Divine,  so  freed  from  the  distorting 
influences  of  prejudice,  passion  and  sin,  so  simply  recipient  of  the 
Divine  ideas  circumambient  around  it,  so  responsive  in  all  its  strings 
to  the  breath  of  heaven,  that  truth  leaves  an  imjiress  upon  it  which 
answers  perfectly  to  the  objective  reality. ' '  ^ 

All  which,  being  interpreted,  is  that  inspiration  and  holi- 
ness, or  sanctijieation,  are  synonymous  terms.  The  author 
apprehends,  in  its  literal  sense,  the  benediction  of  our  Sa- 
viour on  the  pure  in  heart,  and  makes  them  seers  not  only  of 
God,  but  of  those  things  of  God  which,  the  Apostle  assures  us, 
none  can  understand  but  the  Spirit  of  God  Himself  It  will 
certainly  strike  our  readers  as  a  novelty  that  there  should  be 
any  inconsistency  betwixt  the  grace  of  holiness  and  the  gift  of 
knowledge.  They  will  be  slow  to  comprehend  how  sauctifi- 
cation  and  instruction  can  be  contradictory  processes — so  much 
so  that  He  who  sanctifies  cannot  teach.  ''Sanctify  them 
through  thy  truth :  thy  word  is  truth."  "  (iod  liath  from 
1  Page  151. 


42  STAKDAED    AND    NATURE    OF    RELIGIOX.  [Skct.  I. 

the  beginning  chosen  you  to  salvation  through  sanctifi- 
cation  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth."  For  aught 
that  we  can  see,  it  may  be  granted  to  the  author  that  the 
measure  of  piety  is  the  exact  measure  of  ability  to  appre- 
ciate, to  understand,  to  know  Divine  truth,  that  holiness 
is  essential  to  a  living  faith  ;  and  yet  it  will  not  follow  that 
God  cannot  communicate  the  truth  with  which,  as  holy 
beings,  we  are  brought  into  harmony.  If  our  holiness 
were  perfect,  it  would  enable  us,  according  to  the  author, 
to  apprehend  the  objects  of  religion  in  their  concrete  reality, 
but  not  in  their  scientific  form  ;  and  there  is  nothing  absurd 
in  the  idea  that  the  things  which  have  aroused  our  moral 
sensibilities  should  be  presented,  in  their  full  and  perfect 
proportions,  to  the  contemplation  of  the  understanding. 

It  may  be  objected,  however,  that  although  Mr.  Morell's 
2)hilosophy  does  not  prove  a  Divine  theology  to  be  impossible 
or  absurd,  in  the  strict  acceptation  of  the  terms,  yet  it 
demonstrates  what,  in  reference  to  any  dispensation  of  God, 
amounts  to  the  same  thing,  that  it  is  unnecessary  or  useless. 
This  is  no  doubt  the  real  scope  of  his  argument,  though  he 
has  been  bold  enough  to  assert  that  the  only  way,  the  sole 
method,  by  which  a  valid  theology  can  be  constructed  is  by 
human  reflection  on  the  phenomena  of  religion.  But  widely 
diiferent  as  the  issues  of  possibility  and  expediency  evidently 
are,  we  shall  concede,  in  the  present  instance,  that  the  proof 
of  uselessness  is  tantamount  to  the  proof  of  absurdity,  and 
proceed  to  inquire  how  Mr.  Morell  has  succeeded  in  even 
this  aspect  of  the  case.  "  To  a  man  utterly  ignorant,"  says 
he,^  "  of  all  spiritual  conceptions,  and  altogether  insensible 
to  Divine  things,  the  mere  exposition  of  the  truths  and 
doctrines  of  Christianity  is  useless.  He  does  not  grasp  them 
at  all  in  their  proper  meaning  and  intensity ;  ranging  as 
they  do  beyond  the  sphere  of  his  present  experience,  the 
very  terms  of  the  propositions  employed  awaken  no  cor- 
responding idea  within  his  mind."  That  is,  theology, 
under  a  certain  contingency,  is  powerless  to  produce  a  given 
1  Page  137. 


Sect.  I.]  AN    EXTERNAL   STANDARD    VINDICATED.  43 

eifect.  But  a  specific  incompetency  and  a  general  useless- 
ness  are  very  diiferent  things.  Because,  in  a  "  man  utterly 
ignorant  of  all  spiritual  conceptions  and  altogether  insen- 
sible to  Divine  things,"  the  mere  exposition  of  the  truths 
and  doctrines  of  Christianity  cannot  supply  the  place  of 
faculties  to  apprehend  them,  it  by  no  means  follows  that, 
to  the  man  who  has  spiritual  conceptions  and  is  "  sensible 
to  Divine  things,"  theology  may  not  be  of  incalculable  ser- 
vice. To  a  man  destitute  of  senses,  natural  philosophy 
would,  no  doubt,  be  a  very  unintelligible  jargon  ;  but  does 
it  follow  that  it  must  be  correspondingly  useless  to  one  who 
has  all  the  simple  ideas  of  which  it  is  composed?  But  Mr. 
Morell  has  himself  settled  the  question.  He  represents 
theology,  in  our  present  condition,  as  a  necessity^  of  our 
nature,  and  ascribes  to  it  offices  of  immense  importance  in 
the  development  of  the  religious  life.  It  is  true  that  he 
has  his  eye  only  on  human  theology,  but  the  uses  which 
he  admits  are  not  at  all  dependent  upon  its  origin,  but 
upon  its  truth.  It  answers  these  valuable  ends,  not  because 
it  has  been  reached  by  reflection,  but  because  it  has  a  real 
existence  and  is  capable  of  a  real  application.  It  is  the 
thing  itself  which  is  useful,  and  not  the  mode  of  its  dis- 
covery. It  would  seem,  too,  that  the  more  perfect  it  was, 
the  better ;  and  that  the  circumstance  of  its  being  Divine, 
so  far  from  detracting  from  its  value,  would  immensely 
enhance  it.     Let  us  now  attend  to  the  author's  admissions : 

"  Theology,  having  once  been  created,  can  be  presented  didactically 
to  the  understanding  before  there  is  any  awakening  of  the  religious 
nature,  and  can  even  lead  the  mind  to  whom  it  is  presented  to  such 
an  interest  in  the  subject  as  may  issue  in  his  spiritual  enlightenment."  * 

Here  it  is  obvious  that  the  use  of  the  Theology  is  not  at 
all  dependent  upon  its  origin;  it  is  useful  to  a  mind  which 
has  not  been  in  a  situation  to  construct  a  system  reflectively 
for  itself.  This  is  just  what  we  attribute  to  a  Divine  theo- 
logy ;  it  is  the  means  under  God  of  awakening  the  religious 
1  Page  196.  ^  i3        207. 


44  STANDARD    AXD    NATURE    OF    RELIGION.  [SECT.  I. 

nature,  the  incorruptible  seed  by  which  we  are  begotten  to 
newness  of  life,  and  the  standard  to  which  all  our  expe- 
riences must  be  brought,  and  by  which  their  soundness 
must  be  tried.  This  single  consideration,  that  the  science 
of  religion  may  be  the  means  of  awakening  the  religious 
nature,  that  theology  may  be  the  parent  of  piety,  is  enough 
to  set  aside  all  that  the  author  has  said  against  the  value  of 
a  logical  exposition  of  the  truths  and  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

The  following  remarks,  professedly  intended  to  elucidate 
the  subject,  are  applicable  with  tenfold  power  to  such  a  sys- 
tem as  the  Bible  claims  to  be.  We  ask  nothing  more  than 
what  the  author  has  himself  suggested,  to  remove  all  cavils 
against  the  letter  because  it  killeth,  while  the  spirit  only  is 
competent  to  quicken  into  life  : 

"  The  uses  of  Christian  theology  are — 

"1.  To  show  the  internal  consistency  of  religious  truth.  Little  as 
we  need  to  see  this  consistency  whilst  our  inmost  souls  are  burning 
with  a  deep  and  holy  enthusiasm,  yet  in  the  ordinaiy  state  of  human 
life,  beset  as  we  are  with  a  thousand  repressive  influences,  it  is  highly 
important  to  strengthen  ourselves  with  every  kind  of  armour  against 
skepticism  and  indiiFerence.  In  proportion  as  our  zeal  and  excite- 
ment become  cooler,  do  we  need  so  much  the  more  the  concurring 
testimony  of  reason  to  support  us  in  the  pursuit  of  the  Christian  life. 
It  is  upon  this  we  fall  back  when  the  fire  of  life  burns  dim,  until  we  can 
kindle  it  again  from  the  altar  of  God.  Hence,  the  importance  of  hav- 
ing Christian  truth  presented  to  us  in  such  a  form  that  we  may  see  its 
harmony  with  all  the  laws  of  our  intellectual  being,  and  have  their 
witness  to  seal  its  truth  on  our  hearts. 

"2.  Another  use  of  Christian  theology  is  to  repel  philosophical 
objections.  The  unbeliever  has  not  the  witness  within  himself,  and, 
what  is  more,  he  would  fain  destroy  the  validity  of  the  truths  of 
Christianity  to  others  by  affirming  their  inconsistency  with  reason  or 
with  one  another.  The  moral  influences  of  the  religious  life  do  not 
ansicer  these  objections,  although  they  may  disarm  them  greatly  of 
their  force.  To  answer  them  the  truth  convej-ed  in  the  religious  life 
must  be  made  reflective  and  scientific;  then,  indeed,  and  not  till  then, 
can  itself  be  maintained,  and  its  consistency  be  defended  upon  the 
grounds  of  the  philosojihical  objector  himself 

"  3.  A  third  use  of  Christian  theology  is  to  preserve  mankind  from 
vague  enthusiasm.     A  strong  religious  excitement  is  not  inconsistent 


Sect.  I.]  AN    EXTERNAL    STANDARD    VINDICATED.  45 

with  a  weak  judgment,  a  feeble  conscience,  and  active  tendencies  to 
foil}',  and  even  sin.  Under  such  circumstances  the  power  of  the  emo- 
tions will  sometimes  overbalance  the  better  dictates  of  Christian  faith, 
love  and  obedience,  so  as  to  impel  the  subject  of  them  into  something 
bordering  upon  fanaticism.  Against  this  evil  religion  alone  is  often 
unable  to  struggle ;  it  needs  the  stronger  element  of  calm  reason  to 
curb  these  wandering  impulses,  and  bring  them  into  due  subjection  to 
duty  and  to  trath.  Here,  then,  the  influence  of  theology  bears  upon 
the  whole  case,  and  to  its  power  is  it  mainly  owing  that  the  intense 
incentives  oifered  by  Christianity  to  the  emotive  nature  of  man  have 
been  so  ordered  and  directed  as  to  keep  him  from  vague  enthusiasm 
in  his  belief  and  an  unsober  fmaticism  in  his  actions. 

"4.  The  last  use  we  mention  to  which  theology  may  be  applied  is 
to  embody  our  religious  ideas  in  a  complete  and  connected  system.  In 
this  form  they  appeal  to  every  element  in  the  nature  of  man.  The 
moral  influence  they  exert  upon  the  whole  spirit  is  coupled  with  the 
power  of  their  appeal  to  the  reason,  and  the  intellect  of  mankind 
becomes  satisfied  as  the  heart  becomes  softened  and  renewed. 

"Such,  in  brief,  are  some  of  the  principal  uses  of  theology,  form- 
ally considered. ' '  ^ 

Having  shown  that  our  author  has  signally  failed  in  his 
a  priori  argument  against  the  existence  of  a  Divine  stand- 
ard of  theology — that  is,  that  his  philosophy,  even  upon  the 
supposition  of  its  truth,  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  23opular 
faith  in  regard  to  the  authority  of  the  Bible — we  shall  next 
notice  the  several  considerations  by  which  he  attempts  to 
prove  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  no  such  Divine  standard  has 
ever  been  vouchsafed  to  our  race.  His  first  argument  is 
drawn  from  the  proofs  by  which  Christianity  has  been 
revealed  to  man. 

"The  aim  of  revelation,"  he  informs  us,  "has  not  been  formally  to 
expound  a  system  of  doctrine  to  the  understanding,  but  to  educate 
the  mind  of  man  gradually  to  an  inward  appreciation  of  the  truth 
concerning  his  own  relation  to  Grod.  Judaism  was  a  propedeutic  to 
Christianity,  but  there  was  no  formal  definition  of  any  one  spiritual 
truth  in  the  whole  of  that  economy.  The  purpose  of  it  was  to  school  the 
mind  to  spiritual  contemplation,  to  awaken  the  religious  consciousness 
by  types  and  symbols  and  other  perceptive  means  to  the  realization 
of  certain  great  spiritual  ideas,  and  to  furnish  words  and  analogies  in 
which  the  truths  of  Christianity  could  be  embodied  and  proclaimed  to 
1  Pages  225-227. 


46  STANDARD   AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.         [Sect.  I. 

the  world.  If  wc  iiass  on  to  the  Christian  revelation  itself,  the  mode 
of  procedure  we  find  was  generic-ally  the  same.  There  was  no  formal 
exposition  of  Christian  doctrine  in  the  whole  of  the  discourses  of  the 
Saviour.  His  life  and  teaching,  His  character  and  suiferiiig,  His 
death  and  resurrection,  all  appealed  to  the  deeper  religious  nature  of 
man ;  they  were  adapted  to  awaken  it  to  a  newer  and  higher  activity ; 
instead  of  offering  a  mere  explication  to  the  understanding,  thej^  were 
intended  to  furnish  altogether  new  experiences,  to  widen  the  sphere 
of  our  spiritual  insight,  to  embody  a  revelation  from  God.  The  Apos- 
tles followed  in  the  same  course.  They  did  not  start  from  Jerusalem 
with  a  system  of  doctrine  to  propound  intellectually  to  the  world. 
It  would  have  been  no  revelation  to  the  world  if  they  had,  for  with 
his  moral  and  spiritual  nature  sunk  down  into  insensibility  and  sin, 
man  would  have  had  no  real  spiritual  pei-ception  associated  with  the 
very  terms  in  which  their  arguments  and  propositions  must  have  been 
couched.  The  Apostles  went  forth  to  awaken  man's  power  of  spirit- 
ual intuition — to  impress  upon  the  world  the  great  conceptions  of  sin, 
of  righteousness,  of  judgment  to  come,  of  salvation,  of  pm-ity  and  of 
heavenly  love.  This  they  did  by  their  lives,  their  teaching,  their  spirit- 
ual intensify  m  action  and  suffering,  their  whole  testimony  to  the  word, 
the  person,  the  death  and  the  resurrection  of  the  Saviour."  ^ 

We  do  not  remember  ever  to  have  seen  a  more  signal 
exemplification  of  a  theory  breaking  down  under  its  own 
weight  than  that  wliich  is  presented  in  the  preceding  extract. 
The  end  of  all  revelation  is  to  furnish,  we  are  told,  intui- 
tional perceijtions  of  religious  truth  ;  it  cannot,  therefore,  be 
addressed  to  the  understanding,  neither  can  it  contain  logi- 
cal and  definite  statements  of  doctrine.  But  still  this  rev- 
elation is  to  be  imparted  through  the  instrumentality  of 
commissioned  agents,  and  these  agents  fulfil  their  vocation 
by  teaching.  Now,  if  the  reader  will  turn  to  the  second 
chapter  of  our  author's  book,  in  which  the  distinctions  are 
drawn  out  at  length  betwixt  the  intuitional  and  logical  con- 
sciousness, he  will  find  that  the  very  first  point  insisted  on 
is  that  the  "  knowledge  we  obtain  by  the  logical  consciousness 
is  representative  and  indirect,  while  that  which  we  obtain  by 
the  intuitional  consciousness  is  presentative  and  immediate" 
To  produce  an  intuition,  consequently,  the  mind  and  tlie 
object  must  be  brought  together  in  actual  contact.  It  must 
1  Pages  139,  140. 


Sect.  I.]         AN   EXTERNAL   STANDARD   VINDICATED,  47 

not  be  some  description  or  representation,  but  the  reality  of 
truth  itself,  which  must  stand  face  to  face  with  the  knowing 
subject.  Where  essential  existence  or  original  elements  of 
knowledge  are  concerned,  the  power  of  language  is  utterly 
inadequate  to  convey  any  ideas  to  the  mind ;  the  intuitions 
themselves  must  exist,  or  all  efforts  to  awaken  the  concep- 
tions are  utterly  hopeless.  If,  in  conformity  with  these 
principles,  Christ  and  His  Apostles  were  commissioned  to 
make  a  revelation  to  men  whose  moral  and  spiritual  nature 
was  sunk  down  into  insensibility  and  sin,  all  that  they  could 
have  done  was  to  present  the  spiritual  realities  which  they 
themselves  apprehended,  and  then  impart  a  corresponding 
power  to  perceive  them.  They  went,  according  to  the 
theory,  among  the  blind  to  make  known  glorious  objects  of 
sight.  Their  first  business  must  have  been  to  place  the 
objects  within  the  reach  of  the  eye,  and  then  purge  the 
eyes  to  behold  them.  This  is  the  only  way  in  which  we 
can  conceive  that  they  could  have  succeeded  in  eflPecting 
vision.  But  what  has  teaching  to  do  with  this  process? 
All  the  knowledge  acquired  from  another  through  the 
medium  of  signs  is  indirect  and  representative,  and  there- 
fore addressed  not  to  intuition,  but  to  the  understanding. 
How  will  our  author  explain  this  inconsistency?  He, 
in  the  first  place,  represents  Christ  and  His  Apostles  as 
spiritual  mesmerizers,  whose  whole  business  it  is  to  bring 
their  fellow-men  face  to  face  with  a  class  of  transcendental 
realities,  and  then  at  the  very  time  that  he  is  disproving  the 
possibility  of  an  appeal  to  the  understanding,  he  converts 
them  into  teachers,  dealing  not  with  the  realities  themselves, 
but  with  their  signs  and  logical  exponents.  They  a^vaken 
intuitions  by  teaching!  Hence,  upon  his  own  admission, 
the  process  by  which  Christianity  has  been  revealed  to  man 
is  not  in  accordance  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  his 
system.  The  inconsistency  of  his  statements  is  still  more 
glaring  in  reference  to  the  JNIosaic  institute.  That,  it  seems, 
was  a  propredcutic  to  Christianity,  but  it  had  nothing  logi- 
cal, nothing  in  the  way  of  representative  instruction,  and 


48  STAND AUD    AND   XATUKE   OF   EELIGIOX.         [Skct.  T. 

"yet  aAvakened  the  religious  consciousness  by  types  and 
symbols."  Now,  we  would  humbly  ask,  What  are  types 
and  symbols  but  a  language  through  which,  in  the  one  case, 
instruction  is  communicated  by  means  of  analogy,  and  in 
the  otlicr  by  means  of  visible  and  exj^ressive  signs?  In 
what  way  could  these  figured  representations  of  truth-  sug- 
gest the  spiritual  realities  to  the  mind,  but  through  the 
operations  of  the  understanding,  comparing  the  type  with 
the  antitype,  the  sign  with  the  thing  signified  ?  From  the 
author's  own  account,  then,  it  is  evident  that  both  Judaism 
and  Christianity  were  propagated  by  appeals  to  the  under- 
standing, that  the  agents  of  the  revelation  in  both  cases 
were,  in  the  strict  and  proper  sense  of  the  term,  teacherSf 
and  that  it  was  a  part  of  their  commission  to  embody  in 
language  of  some  sort  the  high  conceptions  to  which  they 
were  anxious  to  elevate  their  race.  These  conceptions 
when  embodied  in  language  became  doctrines,  so  that  there 
must  have  been,  to  the  same  extent  to  which  Christ  and  His 
Apostles  were  teachers,  "a  formal  exposition  of  Christian 
doctrine." 

But  we  would  ask  our  author,  How,  apart  from  didactic 
appeals — which,  we  have  already  seen,  he  confesses  may  be 
the  means  of  spiritual  awakening — spiritual  intuitions  could 
be  engendered  by  any  merely  human  agency  ?  In  what 
way  is  it  possible  for  one  man  to  present  a  spiritual  reality 
to  another,  except  through  its  verbal  sign,  or  by  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  occasions  on  which  the  intuitions  are  expe- 
rienced ?  His  whole  office  must  be  logical.  He  can  neither 
give  eyes  to  see,  nor  can  he  bring  the  objects  themselves 
in  their  essential  and  substantive  existence  into  contact  with 
the  mind.  He  can,  in  other  words,  do  nothing,  according 
to  Mr.  Morell's  own  psychology,  but  make  a  logical  state- 
ment of  his  own  experiences.  How  could  the  Apostles, 
for  example,  impress  upon  the  world  the  great  conceptions 
of  sin,  of  righteousness,  of  judgment  to  come,  of  salvation, 
of  purity,  of  heavenly  love,  but  by  some  definite — that  is  to 
say,  logical — expression  of  these  very  conceptions  as  they 


Sect.  L]         AN   EXTERNAL   STANDARD   VINDICATED.  49 

existed  in  their  own  minds,  or,  if  they  were  simple  and 
elementary  ideas,  by  referring  to  the  occasions  or  circum- 
stances connected  with  their  first  suggestion  to  themselves  ? 
The  intuitions  they  could  no  more  produce  than  they  could 
create  a  soul.  Through  a  strong  ideal  presence  of  the 
scenes  amid  which  their  own  experiences  had  been  awa- 
kened, they  might  rouse  the  latent  susceptibilities  of  their 
hearers,  but  their  office  terminated  with  the  descriptions 
suited  to  produce  this  presence,  Avhich  is  purely  a  logical  pro- 
cess. "  Their  testimony  to  the  word,  the  person,  the  death 
and  the  resurrection  of  the  Saviour"  must,  in  the  same 
way,  have  been  conveyed  in  words ;  they  could  only  hope 
to  reach  the  sensibilities  through  the  understanding ;  they 
could  set  Christ  and  his  life  in  vivid  distinctness  before  the 
minds  of  men,  but  it  could  only  be  by  signs  which  repre- 
sented the  realities ;  and  therefore  their  appeals  must  have 
been  exclusively  logical.  Their  intensity  in  action  and 
suffering,  as  a  mere  phenomenon,  suggested  no  definite  idea; 
it  might  have  been  madness,  fanaticism  or  any  other  extra- 
vagance ;  it  could  have  no  moral  import  to  spectators  until 
it  was  explained ;  and  we  see  no  way  of  explaining  it  but 
by  signs  which  should  represent  the  moral  enthusiasm  from 
which  it  sprung.  Hence,  according  to  the  author's  own 
showing,  the  labours  of  Apostles  and  Evangelists  were  con- 
fined exclusively  to  the  faculty  which  deals  with  signs. 
They  testified  to  facts,  and  embodied  in  words  the  great 
moral  conceptions  which  these  facts  involved;  and  hence 
Christianity  then  was  diffused  so  far  as  the  agency  of  men  was 
employed  by  addresses  to  the  logical  faculty.  The  Apostles 
taught,  testified,  acted ;  their  teaching  and  testimony  were 
obviously  to  the  understanding,  and  action  has  no  meaning 
except  as  its  principles  and  motives  are  understood.  Direct 
appeals  to  the  intuitional  consciousness  would  evidently 
liave  been  preposterous.  That  faculty  deals  immediately 
with  things  themselves ;  and  unless  the  Apostles  were  gifted 
with  power  to  command  the  presence  of  spiritual  realities 
at  pleasure,  to  bring  God  and  Heaven  and  Hell  into  direct 

Vol.  III.— 4 


50  STANDARD   AND   NATURE   OF    RELIGION.         [Sect.  I. 

contact  witli  the  minds  of  men,  and  possessed  a  similar 
power  over  the  hardened  hearts,  the  slumbering  consciences 
and  the  stupid  sensibility  of  their  age — unless  they  could 
give  eyes  to  the  blind  and  ears  to  the  deaf — to  have  sent 
them  into  the  world  to  awaken  religious  intuitions  would 
have  been  about  as  sensible  an  errand  as  to  have  sent  them 
into  a  cemetery  to  quicken  corpses  and  make  the  dead 
entranced  admirers  of  the  beauty  of  nature.  If  they  were 
to  be  debarred  from  addressing  the  understanding,  we  are 
utterly  at  a  loss  to  conceive  in  what  manner  they  would  pro- 
ceed. Mr.  Morell  has  involved  himself  in  perplexity  and 
contradiction  by  confounding  the  real  mission  of  the  Apos- 
tles, which  was  purely  logical,  and  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  could  not  have  been  otherwise,  with  the  results  which 
God  intended  to  effect,  and  which,  if  he  likes  the  expres- 
sion, were  purely  intuitional.  The  whole  process,  as  it  is 
described  in  the  New  Testament,  is  plain,  simple,  intelli- 
gible. It  consisted,  in  the  fii'st  place,  in  that  very  logical 
explication  or  statement  of  doctrines  which  Mr.  IMorell  so 
much  abhors ;  and  then  in  a  process  of  supernatural  illumi- 
nation which  it  was  the  prerogative  of  God  alone  to  com- 
municate. The  Apostles  described  the  realities  of  religion, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  enabled  the  hearers  to  understand. 
They  made  the  sounds,  the  Spirit  imparted  the  hearing  ear ; 
they  presented  the  scenes,  the  Spirit  gave  the  seeing  eye ; 
they  announced  the  truth,  the  Spirit  vouchsafed  the  under- 
standing heart.  They,  in  other  words,  upon  the  authority 
of  God,  proclaimed  an  infallible  theology ;  and  the  Spirit 
of  all  grace  produced  the  religion  of  which  that  theology 
was  the  logical  expression.  He  used  their  truth  to  renew, 
to  sanctify,  to  purify,  to  save.  Their  business  was  to  teach  ; 
it  was  the  office  of  an  Agent  more  august  and  glorious  than 
themselves  to  awaken  the  conceptions  which  that  teaching 
embodied. 

It  is  particularly  in  the  chapter  on  Inspiration  that  the 
author  points   out  the  difficulties  with   which  the  vulgar 


Sect.  I.]  AN    EXTERNAL   STANDARD    VINDICATED.  51 

theory  of  the  Divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures  is  encum- 
bered. We  have  seen  that  he  regards  inspiration  as  efj[uiva- 
lent  to  holiness ;  and  most  of  the  chapter  is  occupied  in 
refuting  what  he  has  chosen  to  designate  the  mechanical 
view  of  the  question.  It  is,  of  course,  indispensable  to  the 
authority  of  the  Scriptures  as  the  Word  of  God  that  the 
men  who  wrote  them  should  have  written  as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Any  hypothesis  which  sets 
aside  a  Divine  testimony  to  every  statement  and  doctrine 
of  the  Bible  is  inconsistent  with  the  exercise  of  that  faith 
which  the  Scriptures  exact,  and  which  is  the  only  adequate 
foundation  of  infallible  assurance.  So  far  as  responsible 
authorship  is  concerned,  a  Divine  rule  of  faith  must  be  the 
production  of  God.  The  design  of  such  a  rule  is  not  simply 
to  give  us  truth,  but  truth  which  we  know  to  be  truth, 
specifically  on  the  ground  that  the  Lord  has  declared  it. 
Hence  the  theory  of  "  verbal  dictation,"  which  our  author 
declares  ^  "  has  been  so  generally  abandoned  by  the  thought- 
ful in  the  present  day,"  is  the  only  theory  which  we  have 
ever  regarded  as  consistent  with  the  exigencies  of  the  case, 
the  only  theory  which  makes  the  Bible  what  it  professes  to 
be,  the  Word  of  God,  and  an  adequate  and  perfect  mea- 
sure of  our  faith.  If  its  contents,  in  any  instances,  however 
insignificant,  rest  only  upon  the  testimony  of  the  human 
agents  employed  in  writing  it,  in  those  instances  we  can 
only  believe  in  man  ;  the  statements  may  be  true,  but  they 
cease  to  be  Divine  and  infallible,  and  the  assent  which  we 
yield  to  them  becomes  opinion  and  not  faith.  If,  therefore, 
the  author  has  succeeded  in  demolishing  the  theory  of  ver- 
bal dictation  or  of  a  distinct  commission — which  he  treats 
separately,  though  they  are  only  different  expressions  of  the 
same  thing — it  must  be  confessed  that,  however  he  has 
failed  in  his  philosophy,  he  has  completely  triumphed  in 
the  a  posteriori  aspect  of  his  argument. 

His  first  consideration  is,  that  ''  there  is  no  positive  evi- 
dence of  such  a  verbal  dictation    having   been  granted." 
1  Page  154. 


52  STANDAED   AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.         [Sect.  I. 

This  is  summary  enough.     But  the  reason  assigned  is  still 
more  remarkable. 

"The  supposition  of  its  existence  would  demand  a  twofold  kind  of 
inspiration ;  each  kind  entirely  distinct  from  the  other.  The  Apostles, 
it  is  admitted,  were  inspired  to  preach  and  to  teach  orajh/,  but  we 
have  the  most  positive  evidence  that  this  commission  did  not  extend 
to  their  very  words.  Often  they  were  involved  in  minor  misconcep- 
tions ;  and  sometimes  they  taught  specific  notions  inconsistent  with  a 
pure  spiritual  Christianity,  as  Peter  did  when  he  was  chided  by  Paul. 
The  verbal  scheme,  therefore,  demands  the  admission  of  one  kind  of 
inspiration  having  been  given  to  the  Apostles  as  men,  thinkers,  moral 
agents  and  preachers,  and  another  kind  having  been  granted  to  them 
as  writers.^' ^ 

In  the  first  place,  this  twofold  inspiration  is  the  result 
of  Mr.  Morell's  own  arbitrary  use  of  language.  If  he 
chooses  to  describe  the  influences  under  Avhich  men  are 
converted  and  sanctified  as  one  kind  of  inspiration,  the 
theory  of  verbal  dictation,  of  course,  implies  another,  but 
another  by  no  means  inconsistent  with  the  former.  The 
process  by  which  a  man  is  transferred  from  sin  to  holiness 
is  very  diiferent  from  the  process  by  which  he  receives  a 
message  to  be  announced  in  the  terms  of  its  conveyance. 
There  is  nothing  in  personal  integrity  incompatible  with 
the  ojffice  of  a  secretary  or  amanuensis. 

In  the  next  place,  Mr.  Morell  begs  the  question  in  assum- 
ing that  the  commission  of  the  Apostles  as  teachers  and 
preachers  involved  no  other  inspiration  but  that  which 
changed  their  hearts.  The  very  stress  of  the  controversy 
turns  upon  the  question.  What  was  the  apostolic  commis- 
sion ?  Whatsoever  it  was,  it  is  universally  conceded  that  it 
extended  to  their  writings  in  exactly  the  same  sense  in 
which  it  extended  to  their  preaching.  If  their  preaching, 
in  the  discharge  of  their  functions  as  Apostles,  was  not 
verbally  dictated,  no  more  were  their  letters.  If  they  sjxd'e 
not  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  neither  did  they  zvrite  under  His 
suggestions.  "  But,"  says  our  author,  "  we  have  the  most 
positive  evidence  that  this  commission  did  not  extend  to 
1  Page  155. 


Sect.  L]       AN  EXTERNAL  standard  vindicated.         53 

their  very  words."  This,  if  it  coukl  be  proved,  would  set- 
tle the  question.  But  there  is  something  in  the  first  com- 
mission which  our  Saviour  gave  to  the  Twelve  when  He  sent 
them  out  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel  which 
seems  to  be  in  such  palpable  contradiction  to  this  confident 
assumption  that  we  must  be  permitted  to  question  whether 
the  evidence  can  be  regarded  as  superlatively  positive. 
"  Behold,"  says  the  Master,  "  I  send  you  forth  as  sheep  in 
the  midst  of  wolves  ;  be  ye,  therefore,  wise  as  serpents  and 
harmless  as  doves.  But  beware  of  men,  for  they  will  deliver 
you  up  to  the  councils,  and  they  will  scourge  you  in  their 
synagogues,  and  ye'  shall  be  brought  before  governors  and 
kings  for  my  sake,  for  a  testimony  against  them  and  the 
Gentiles.  But  when  they  deliver  you  up,  take  no  thought 
how  or  what  ye  shall  speak ;  for  it  shall  be  given  you  in 
that  same  hour  what  ye  shall  speak.  For  it  is  not  yc  that 
speak,  but  the  Spirit  of  your  Father  which  speaketh  in 
you."  Or,  as  it  is  more  pointedly  in  Mark,  "  it  is  not  ye 
that  speak,  but  the  Holy  Ghost."  Paul,  too,  for  whom  by 
the  way  the  author  has  no  great  jiartiality,  professed  to 
speak  the  things  which  had  been  freely  revealed  to  him  of 
God,  "  not  in  the  words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but 
the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth,"  and  had  the  arrogance  to  treat 
his  own  communications  "as  the  commandments  of  the 
Lord."  But  what  is  the  most  positive  evidence  to  which  Mr. 
Morell  refers  ?  Why  that  the  Apostles  "  were  often  involved 
in  minor  misconceptions,  and  sometimes  they  taught  spe- 
cific notions  inconsistent  with  a  pure  spiritual  Christianity,  as 
Peter  did  when  he  was  chided  by  Paul."  Peter  taught  no 
such  thing.  He  was  guilty  of  dissimulation  in  conduct. 
He  knew  the  truth  and  acted  in  consistency  with  it  before 
that  certain  came  from  James,  but  when  they  were  come, 
he  was  tempted  to  humour  their  prejudices.  Paul  reproved 
him  distinctly  upon  the  ground  that  he  was  acting  in  con- 
tradiction to  what  he  knew  to  be  the  truth  of  the  Gospel. 
This  case,  therefore,  only  proves  that  Peter,  as  a  man,  was 
partially  sanctified ;  it  does  not  prove  that,  as  an  Apostle, 


54  STANDARD   AND   NATUEE   OF   EELIGION.  [Sect.  I. 

he  was  jDcrmittecl  to  fall  into  doctrinal  error.  As  to  the 
other  minor  misconceptions,  to  which  our  author  refers,  it 
will  be  time  to  explain  them  when  we  know  what  they  are. 
Meanwhile,  we  may  be  permitted  to  remark  that  in  this 
case  of  Peter,  the  author  has  confounded  holiness  of  cha- 
racter with  the  apostolic  commission.  The  only  inspiration 
which  he  seems  able  to  conceive  is  that  of  personal  purity ; 
and  if  a  man  has  any  remnants  of  sin  cleaving  to  his  flesh 
or  his  spirit,  he  is,  according  to  Mr.  Morell,  imperfectly 
inspired.  This,  we.  repeat,  is  a  begging  of  the  question. 
No  one  maintains  that  the  Apostles,  as  men,  were  perfect ; 
they  were  sinners  under  the  dominion  of  grace;  but  as 
Apostles,  in  their  official  relations,  it  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
popular  faith  that  they  were  the  organs  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  communicating  to  the  Church  an  infallible  rule  of  faith 
and  practice.  It  is  no  presumption  against  this  hypothesis 
that  they  were  subject  to  the  weaknesses  of  fallen  humanity; 
the  treasure  was  put  in  earthen  vessels,  that  the  excellency 
of  the  power  might  be  confessed  as  springing  from  God. 
It  is  surely  miserable  sophistry,  when  the  very  question  in 
debate  is.  What  was  the  apostolic  commission?  quietly  to 
assume  a  theory,  and  then,  make  that  theory  the  pretext  for 
rejecting  another  account.  And  yet  this  is  what  our  author 
has  done;  he  assumes  that  the  apostolic  commission  con- 
sisted exclusively  in  the  elevation  of  the  religious  sensi- 
bilities, and  then,  upon  the  ground  of  this  assumption,  re- 
jects the  hypothesis  of  verbal  dictation,  as  requiring  a 
commission  for  the  writers  distinct  from  that  of  the  apos- 
tolic office  !  We  suspect  that  it  would  be  no  hard  matter 
to  prove  any  proposition  in  heaven  or  earth,  if  we  can 
only  be  indulged  in  the  liberty  of  taking  our  premises  for 
granted. 

The  author's  second  argument,^   upon  which,  very  pru- 
dently, he  does  not  insist,  is  draAvn  "  from  the  fact  that  Ave 
find  a  distinctive  style  maintained  by  each  separate  author." 
He  regards   it  "  as  a  highly  improbable,  and  even  extra- 
1  Page  15(3. 


Sect.  I.]  AN    EXTERNAL   STANDARD    VINDICATED.  55 

vagant,  supposition,  without  the  most  positive  proof  of  it 
being  offered,  that  each  writer  should  manifest  his  own 
modes  of  thought,  his  own  temperament  of  mind,  his  own 
educational  influence,  his  own  peculiar  phraseology,  and 
yet,  notwithstanding  this,  every  word  should  have  been 
dictated  to  him  by  the  Holy  Spirit."  If  Mr.  Morell  had 
investigated,  a  little  more  fully  than  he  seems  to  have  done, 
the  grounds  of  the  popular  faith,  he  might  have  found  in 
this  very  circumstance,  which  he  considers  so  extremely 
improbable  and  extravagant,  a  fresh  illustration  of  the 
wisdom  of  God.  The  external  proofs  of  inspiration,  which 
consist  in  the  signs  of  an  Apostle  or  Prophet,  found  either 
in  the  writer  himself,  or  some  one  commissioned  to  vouch 
for  his  production,  require,  in  most  cases,  a  knowledge  of 
the  author.  And  in  conducting  an  inquiry  upon  this  point, 
the  internal  evidence  arising  from  style,  structure  and 
habits  of  thought  materially  contributes  to  a  satisfactory 
result.  In  the  first  stage  of  the  investigation  wc  consider 
the  productions  simply  as  human  compositions^  s.nd  God 
has  wisely  distributed  the  gift  of  inspiration,  so  thsA,  while 
He  is  responsible  for  all  that  is  said,  the  individual  peculiar- 
ities of  the  agent  shall  designate  the  person  whose  instru- 
mentality He  employed.  He  has  facilitated  our  inquiry 
into  the  human  organ  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Having  ascer- 
tained ourselves  as  to  the  human  authors  or  their  works, 
the  next  question  is,  as  to  the  claims  which  they  themselves 
put  forward  to  Divine  direction.  What  are  these  claims, 
and  how  are  they  substantiated?  If  they  pretend  to  a 
verbal  dictation,  and  then  adduce  the  credentials  sufficient 
to  authenticate  it,  we  have  all  which,  in  the  way  of  external 
evidence,  could  be  reasonably  exacted.  The  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  for  example,  is  put  into  our  hands  as  a  part  of  the 
Word  of  God.  The  first  question  is.  Who  wrote  it  ?  If  it 
can  be  traced  to  Paul,  we  know  that  he  was  an  Aj^ostle  of 
the  Saviour  and  enjoyed  Avhatever  inspiration  was  attached 
to  the  apostolic  office.  He  possessed  in  an  eminent  degree 
the  signs  of  an  Apostle,  and  if  it  were  one  of  tJie  privileges 


56  STANDARD   AND    NATURE   OF   RELIGION.         [Sect.  I 

of  the  office  that  those  who  were  called  to  it  should,  in 
their  public  instructions  and  testimonies  for  Jesus,  speak  the 
language  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  soon  as  we  are  convinced 
that  Paul  was  the  writer  of  the  document,  its  ultimate 
emanation  from  God  is  settled.  Now  it  obviously  facilitates 
this  inquiry  to  have  the  mind  of  Paul  stamped  upon  the 
letter — to  have  it  distinctly  impressed  with  his  image,  while 
it  contains  nothing  but  the  true  and  faithful  sayings  of  God. 
It  is  consequently  no  presumption  against  the  Divine  dicta- 
tion of  a  book  that  it  should  exhibit  traces  of  the  hand 
that  was  employed. 

The  third  argument^  mistakes  altogether  the  very  end 
of  inspiration.  The  purpose  was  to  furnish  a  statement  of 
facts  and  an  exhibition  of  doctrines,  which  should  be  re- 
ceived with  a  faith  infallible  and  Divine,  upon  the  sole  con- 
sideration that  God  was  the  Author  of  both.  Its  design 
was  to  give  us  a  rule  of  faith  and  not  a  standard  of  opinion. 
It  was  to  be  a  Divine  testimony ;  and  therefore,  whatever 
might  be  the  moral  and  religious  qualifications  of  the  wri- 
ters, however  competent  they  might  have  been  upon  their 
own  authority  to  have  told  us  the  same  things,  their  words 
could,  in  no  sense,  be  received  as  the  real  oracles  of  God. 
The  Lord  Himself  must  speak ;  and  this  being  the  purpose 
of  inspiration,  verbal  dictation  detracts  in  no  way  from  the 
character  or  worth  of  the  Apostles.  What  they  were  in- 
spired to  teach  others  was  received  by  themselves  upon  the 
same  ultimate  ground  on  which  it  is  received  by  us.  They 
were  channels  of  communication,  not  because  they  were  fit 
to  be  nothing  else,  but  because  the  end  intended  to  be 
answered  necessarily  precluded  any  other  relation,  on  their 
part,  to  the  message  conveyed. 

The  fourth  argument,  which  is  a  repetition,  almost  for 
the  hundredth  time,  of  the  incompetency  of  the  Bible  to 
change  the  heart  and  enlighten  the  understanding,  though 
the  author  presents  it  here  as  a  "moral  demonstration" 
against  the  theory  of  verbal  dictation,  has  already  been 
1  Page  156. 


Sect.  L]         AN   EXTERNAL   STANDARD   VINDICATED.  57 

sufficiently  answered  in  what  we  have  said  of  the  uses  of 
theology.  Mr.  Morell  ought  to  know  how  to  distinguish 
between  an  inadequacy  to  produce  a  given  effect  and  uni- 
versal worthlessness.  Is  the  eye  useless  because  it  can- 
not hear,  or  the  ear  useless  because  it  cannot  see?  And 
must  a  Divine  standard  of  theology  be  utterly  good  for 
nothing  because  it  cannot  perform  the  office  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  ?  Is  there  nothing  else  that  it  can  do  ?  Has  not  he 
himself  repeatedly  admitted  that  a  human  theology  sub- 
serves many  valuable  purposes  in  the  economy  of  religion  ? 
and  in  the  name  of  truth  and  righteousness  what  is  there 
in  the  mere  circumstance  that  it  is  human  to  give  it  such 
an  immense  advantage  over  one  that  is  Divine  ? 

The  theory  of  a  distinct  commission — which  the  author 
treats  separately  from  that  of  verbal  dictation,  though  they 
are  only  different  expressions  of  the  same  thing — he  sum- 
marily dismisses  as  destitute  of  any  satisfactory  evidence, 
and  indebted  for  "  its  growth  and  progress  in  the  Church 
to  the  influence  of  a  low  and  mechanical  view  of  the  whole 
question  of  inspiration  itself."  ^  The  compositions  of  the 
Prophets  and  Apostles,  whether  in  the  Old  or  New  Testa- 
ment, he  considers  as  the  spontaneous  effusions  of  their 
own  minds,  prompted  by  the  motives  which  usually  regu- 
late good  men  in  their  efforts  to  promote  the  welfare  of 
their  race.  The  purpose  to  write  and  the  things  they  should 
write  were  equally  the  suggestions  of  their  own  benevolence 
and  wisdom.  The  theory  of  a  distinct  commission,  on  the 
other  hand,  asserts  that  they  were  commanded  to  write  by 
the  special  authority  of  God,  and  that  the  things  which  they 
wrote  were  dictated  to  them  by  the  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  settlement  of  this  controversy  evidently  turns 
upon  two  points :  the  light  in  which  the  writers  themselves 
regarded  it,  or,  in  the  absence  of  any  specific  information 
upon  this  head,  the  light  in  which  it  was  regarded  by  those 
who  were  competent  to  judge.  If  they  claimed  a  distinct 
commission,  or  if  those  whose  testimony  ought  to  be  decisive 
1  Page  160. 


58  STANDARD   AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.         [Sect.  I 

awarded  it  to  them,  there  is  an  end  of  the  dispute.  With 
relation  to  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  receive  their 
verbal  insjiiration  upon  two  grounds.  The  first  is  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Jewish  Church,  which  in  the  successive  genera- 
tions contemporary  with  the  successive  writers  in  its  canon 
known  to  them,  hoAvever  unknown  to  us,  possessed  the 
means  of  determining  with  accuracy  whether  the  several 
authors  exhibited  themselves  the  external  proofs  of  a  Divine 
commission,  or,  in  the  absence  of  such  proofs,  whether  their 
productions  were  vouched  by  the  seal  of  those  who  were 
competent,  from  the  same  proofs,  to  give  an  infallible 
decision.  The  second  is  the  testimony  of  Christ  ^nd  His 
Apostles.  These  witnesses  are  competent  to  judge.  Now 
the  question  is.  What  judgment  did  they  give?  In  what 
sense  did  they  receive  these  books  as  coming  from  God  ? 
AYe  shall  not  here  enter  into  the  question  concerning  the 
notions  of  the  Je^vs,  although  they  are  patent  upon  almost 
every  page  of  the  New  Testament;  but  we  confidently 
assert  that  Christ  and  His  Apostles  distinctly  and  unequi- 
vocally awarded  to  the  Prophets  of  the  ancient  dispensation 
precisely  the  verbal  inspiration  in  their  writings  which  Mr. 
INIorell  labours  to  subvert.  Paul  declares  that  "  all  Scrip- 
ture is  given  by  inspiration  of  God ;"  ^  Peter,  a  little  more 
definitely,  that  "  holy  men  of  God  sjxihe  as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  ^  Our  Saviour  rebuts  a  malig- 
nant accusation  of  the  Jews  by  an  argument  which  turns 
upon  the  Divine  authority  of  the  u-ords  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment;^ and  passages  are  again  and  again  quoted  by  His 
Apostles  as  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the  Holy  Spirit :  "  Well 
spake  the  Holy  Ghost,"  says  Paul,  "  by  Esaias  the  Prophet 
unto  our  fathers."*  "Wherefore  as  the  Holy  Ghost  saith, 
To-day  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice,  harden  not  your  hearts."  ® 
The  Old  Testament  is  compendiously  described  as  "the 
oracles  of  God,®  and  the  Apostle  informs  us  that  it  Avas 
"God  who,  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners,  spake 

1 2  Tim.  iii.  16.  "  2  Pet.  i.  21.  »  John  x.  33-36. 

*  Acts  xxviii.  25.  *  Heb.  iii.  7.  '  Eom.  iii.  2. 


SEca.  I.]         AN    EXTERNAL   STANDARD    VINDICATED.  59 

iu  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  Prophets."^  Paul  goes 
so  far  as  to  identify  the  Scripture  with  God  Himself — attrib- 
uting to  it  what  was  absolutely  true  only  of  Him.  "  The 
Scripture  saith  unto  Pharaoh  ;"  "  the  Scripture  foreseeing  that 
God  would  justify  the  heathen;"  "the  Scripture  hath  con- 
cluded all  under  sin."  It  is  absolutely  certain,  from  these 
references,  that  Christ  and  His  Apostles  regarded  the  Old 
Testament  as  verbally  inspired,  and  the  Prophets  as  nothing 
but  the  agents  through  whom  the  Holy  Ghost  communicated 
His  will.  It  is  of  no  consequence,  therefore,  whether  we 
know  the  human  authors  of  the  different  books  or  not,  or 
the  times  at  which  they  were  written,  or  even  the  country 
in  which  they  were  composed ;  it  is  enough  that  what  con- 
stituted the  canon  of  the  Jews  in  the  days  of  our  Saviour 
was  endorsed  by  Him  and  His  own  chosen  Apostles  as  the 
Word  of  God.  He  and  they  referred  to  that  canon  as  a 
whole,  under  the  well-known  titles  of  "The  Scriptures," 
"The  Law,"  "The  Prophets  and  the  Psalms;"  "treated  it 
generally  as  authoritative;"  called  it  specifically  "  the  Oracles 
of  God;"  and,  quoted  particular  passages  in  a  way  in  which 
they  could  not  have  quoted  them  if  there  had  been  no  distinct 
commission  to  write  them.  But  these  considerations,  it  ap- 
pears, are  nothing  to  Mr.  Morell.  Because  we  are  not  in 
possession  of  the  evidence  which  justified  the  reception  of 
each  particular  book  into  the  Jewish  canon,  he  triumphantly 
asks  what  chance  we  have  upon  the  hypothesis  of  verbal 
dictation  of  being  successful  in  proving  the  inspiration  of 
the  Old  Testament  against  the  aggressions  of  the  skeptic.^ 
"  The  fact,"  he  adds,  "  upon  which  many  lay  such  remark- 
able stress,  that  Christ  and  His  Apostles  honoured  the  Old 
Testament,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose,  as  far  as  the  nature 
of  their  [its]  inspiration  is  concerned."  But  is  it  nothing 
to  the  purpose  that  Christ  and  His  Apostles  distinctly  de- 
clare to  us  that  it  was  God  who  spake  by  the  Prophets, 
that  the  Scriptures  are  called  by  our  Saviour  the  Word  of 
God,  and  that  particular  passages  are  repeatedly  cited  as 
1  Heb.  i.  1.  ^  Page  178. 


60  STAND AED   AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.         [Sect.  I. 

the  ipsisswia  verba  of  the  Holy  Ghost?     Is  this  kind  of 
honour  nothing  ?     But  he  continues: 

"  They  honoured  the  Divine  and  the  ^toviaHn  the  old  dispensa- 
tion. They  honoured  the  men  who  had  been  servants  and  prophets 
of  the  IMost  High.  They  honoured  the  writings  from  which  their 
spirit  of  piety  and  of  power  breathed  forth.  But  never  did  they 
affirm  the  literal  and  special  divinity  of  all  the  national  records  of 
the  Jewish  people,  as  presened  and  read  in  the  synagogues  of  that 
day. ' '  ^ 

No  doubt  Christ  and  His  Apostles  honoured  the  Divine 
and  the  Eternal  in  the  old  dispensation,  but,  if  the  Scrip- 
tures are  to  be  credited,  they  also  honoured  the  Divine  and 
temporary.  They  honoured  everything  that  was  Divine, 
whether  it  was  to  remain  or  to  be  done  away.  The  Master 
fulfilled  all  righteousness.  As  to  the  men  who  had  been 
servants  and  prophets  of  the  ISIost  High,  they  said  very  lit- 
tle about  them — at  least  very  little  is  recorded.  But  it  is 
certain  that  they  never  honoured  the  writings  of  the  Proph- 
ets because  they  were  the  offspring  of  pious  and  devo- 
tional feeling.  It  was  not  because  the  spirit  of  the  men 
was  in  them,  but  because  the  Spirit  of  God  was  there,  that 
they  attached  the  importance  which  they  did  attach  to  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament;  and  the  passages  which  we 
have  already  quoted  put  it  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt 
that  they  did  regard  God  as  the  real  and  responsible  Author 
of  these  books.  Their  testimony  is,  or  ought  to  be,  deci- 
sive of  the  question. 

The  author's  opinion  of  the  inspiration  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament may  be  collected  from  the  following  passage,  which, 
though  long,  cannot  be  conveniently  abridged : 

"Passing  from  the  Old  Testament  to  the  New,  the  same  entire 
absence  of  any  distinct  commission  given  to  the  writers  of  the  several 
books  (with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  the  Apocalypse  of  John)  pre- 
sents itself  Mark  and  Luke  were  not  Apostles,  and  the  latter  of  them 
distinctly  professes  to  write  from  the  testimony  of  eye-witnesses,  and 
to  claim  the  confidence  of  Theophilus,  for  whom  his  two  treatises  were 
1  Page  178. 


Sect.  I.]         AN   EXTERNAL   STANDARD   VINDICATED.  61 

composed,  on  this  particular  ground.  Matthew  and  John  wrote  their 
accounts  somewhat  far  in  the  first  century,  when  the  increase  of  the 
Christian  converts  naturally  suggested  the  necessity  of  some  such 
statements,  at  once  for  their  information  and  for  their  spiritual  require- 
ments generally.  Finally,  Paul,  as  we  know,  wrote  his  letters  as  the 
state  of  i^articular  churches  seemed  to  call  for  them ;  but  in  no  case 
do  we  find  a  sjjecial  commission  attached  to  any  of  these,  or  of  the 
other  Epistles  of  the  New  Testament. 

"Added  to  this,  the  light  which  history  sheds  upon  the  early  period 
of  the  Christian  Church  shows  us  that  the  writings  which  now  com- 
pose the  New  Testament  Canon  were  not  at  all  regarded  as  express 
messages  to  them  from  God,  independently  of  the  conviction  they  had 
of  the  high  integrity  and  spiritual  development  of  the  minds  of  the 
writers.  They  received  them  just  as  they  received  the  oral  teachings 
of  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists ;  they  read  them  in  the  churches  to 
supply  the  place  of  their  personal  instructions ;  and  there  is  abundant 
evidence  that  many  other  writings  beside  those  which  now  form  the 
New  Testament  were  read  with  a  similar  reverence  and  for  a  sim- 
ilar edification. 

"It  was  only  gradually,  as  the  pressure  of  heresy  compelled  it,  that  a 
certain  number  of  writings  were  agreed  upon  by  general  consent  as 
being  purely  apostolic,  and  designated  by  the  term  homologoumena, 
or  agreed  upon.  But  that  much  contention  existed  as  to  which  should 
be  acknowledged  canonical,  and  which  not,  is  seen  from  the  fact  that 
a  number  of  the  writings  now  received  were  long  termed  '  antilego- 
mena,'  or  contested,  and  that  the  third  century  had  wellnigh  com- 
pleted its  course  before  the  present  canon  was  fixed  by  universal  con- 
sent. All  this  shows  us  that  it  was  not  any  distinct  commission  attached 
to  the  composition  of  certain  books  or  documents  which  imparted  a 
Divine  authority  to  the  Apostles'  writings,  but  that  they  were  selected 
and  approved  by  the  Church  itself  as  being  veritable  productions  of 
men  '  who  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost '  —  men  who 
were  not  inspired  in  order  to  write  any  precise  documents,  but  who 
wrote  such  documents,  amongst  other  labours,  by  virtue  of  their  being 
inspired. 

"  The  conclusion  which  we  necessarily  draw  from  these  considerations 
is,  that  the  canonioity  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  was  decided 
upon  solely  on  the  ground  of  their  presenting  to  the  whole  Church 
clear  statements  of  apostolical  Christianity.  The  idea  of  their  being 
wi-itten  by  any  special  command  of  God  or  verbal  dictation  of  the 
Spirit  was  an  idea  altogether  foreign  to  the  primitive  churches. 
They  knew  that  Christ  was  in  Himself  a  Divine  revelation ;  they  knew 
that  the  Apostles  had  been  with  Him  in  His  ministiy;  they  knew  that 
their  hearts  had  been  warmed  with  His  truth,  that  their  whole  religious 


62  STANDARD    AND   NATURE   OF    RELIGION.  [Sect.  I. 

nature  had  been  elevated  to  intense  spirituality  of  thinking  and  feel- 
ing by  the  possession  of  His  Spirit,  and  that  this  same  Spirit  was 
poured  out  without  measure  upon  the  Church.  Here  it  was  they 
took  their  stand,  and  in  these  facts  they  saw  the  reality  of  the  apostolic 
inspiration ;  upon  these  realities  they  reposed  their  faith  ere  ever 
the  sacred  books  were  penned  ;  and  when  they  icere  penned,  they  re- 
garded them  as  valid  representations  of  the  living  truth  which  had 
already  enlightened  the  Church,  and  as  such  alone  pronounced  upon 
their  canonical  and  truly  apostolic  character."  ^ 

The  substance  of  these  observations  may  be  reduced  to 
three  points:  1.  That  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
made  no  pretensions  to  the  sort  of  inspiration  implied  in 
the  idea  of  a  Divine  commission  to  write.  2.  That  the 
primitive  Church  did  not  look  upon  their  productions  as  the 
words  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  and,  3.  That  the  collection  of 
books  which  constitute  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament 
was  made,  not  that  it  might  be  an  authoritative  rule  of 
faith,  but  that  precious  mementas  of  the  Apostles  and 
of  apostolic  preaching  might  be  embodied  and  preserved. 

Every  one  of  these  propositions  is  grossly  and  notoriously 
false.  There  are  three  considerations  which  to  any  candid 
mind  put  it  beyond  all  reasonable  controversy  that  the 
Apostles  and  Evangelists  must  have  claimed  the  plenary 
inspiration  for  which  we  contend.  The  first  is,  that  the 
Saviour,  on  no  less  than  four  different  occasions,  promised 
to  the  Twelve  the  verbal  dictation  of  the  Spirit  when  they 
should  be  called  to  testify  for  Him.  The  last  of  these  prom- 
ises has  no  limitation  as  to  time  and  place,  and  the  language 
in  which  it  is  couched  deserves  to  be  seriously  pondered : 
"Howbeit,  when  He,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  is  come,  He  will 
guide  you  into  all  truth ;  for  He  shall  not  speak  of  Himself, 
but  whatsoever  He  shall  hear,  that  shall  He  speak,  and  He 
will  show  you  things  to  come."^  These  promises  explain 
the  nature  of  the  apostolic  commission,  at  least  so  far  as 
oral  teaching  was  concerned.     When  the  Apostles  spake, 

1  Pages  163-165. 

*  John  xvi.  13.  The  other  instances  are:  Matt.  x.  19,  20;  Mark  xiii. 
11 ;  Luke  xii.  11,  12. 


Sect.  I.]         AX   EXTERNAL   STANDARD   VINDICATED.  63 

it  was  not  in  the  words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  bnt 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth.  The  second  consideration 
is,  that  the  Apostles  placed  their  writings  upon  the  same 
footing  exactly  with  their  oral  instructions.  Est  enim  Scrip- 
turce  et  prcedicationis  par  ratio}  The  third  is,  that  they 
attributed  the  same  authority  to  their  own  compositions 
which  they  awarded  to  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Peter  refers  to  the  Epistles  of  Paul  with  the  same  reverence 
with  which  he  refers  to  the  canon  of  the  Jews,^  and  Paul 
quotes  the  Law  of  Moses  and  the  Gospel  of  Luke  as  entitled 
to  equal  consideration.^  If,  now,  our  Saviour  promised  the 
verbal  dictation  of  the  Spirit  in  the  oral  teaching  of  the 
Apostles,  and  they  ascribed  the  same  authority  to  their  writ- 
ings which  belonged  to  their  preaching,  if  they  reckoned 
their  own  compositions  in  the  same  category  with  the  Law, 
the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms,  and  distinctly  traced  these  to 
the  immediate  suggestions  of  God,  what  more  can  be  re- 
quired to  establish  the  unqualified  falsehood  of  Mr.  Morell's 
first  position  upon  the  subject?  But  Luke,  it  seems — ^whom, 
be  it  remembered,  Paul  quotes  as  of  equal  authority  with 
Moses — virtually  disclaimed  this  species  of  inspiration, 
since  "he  professes  to  write  from  the  testimony  of  eye-wit- 
nesses, and  to  claim  the  confidence  of  Theophilus,  for  whom 
his  two  treatises  were  composed,  on  this  particular  ground.'"* 
Mr.  Morell  is  particularly  unfortunate  whenever  he  deals 
with  Scripture.  The  memorable  words  of  our  Saviour  to 
Nicodemus,  "  God  so  loved  the  world,"  etc.,  he  very  amus- 
ingly expounds^  as  a  discovery  of  one  of  the  Apostles — a 
bright  ray  of  intuition  beaming  from  a  mind  intensely 
heated  by  the  marvellous  scenes  connected  with  the  history 
of  Jesus.  And  here  he  blunders  sadly  in  reference  to  the 
beloved  physician.     Luke  does  not  say  that  he  wrote  from 

1  2  Thess.  ii.  15;  1  Cor.  xv.  1;  John  xx.  31;  1  John  i.  1-4. 

=  2  Pet.  iii.  16. 

'  1  Tim.  V.  18.  The  labourer  is  tcorthy  of  his  hire  is  a  passage  found  no- 
where else  as  quoted  by  Paul  but  in  Luke  x.  7,  and  there  it  occurs  exactly 
in  the  words  of  the  Apostle. 

*  Page  163.  5  Pages  247,  248. 


64  STANDARD  AND   NATURE    OF   RELIGION.         [Sect.  I. 

the  testimony  of  eye-witnesses,  but  that  others  had  done  so. 
He  simply  ascribes  to  himself,  according  to  our  English 
version,  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  facts,  or,  according 
to  another  version,  a  thorough  investigation  of  them;  and 
he  claims  the  confidence  of  Theophilus,  because  he  himself 
was  perfectly  ascertained  of  the  truth  of  what  he  wrote. 
His  own  mind  had  reached  certainty — by  what  particular 
steps  is  not  made  known  to  us — and  he  was  anxious  to  im- 
part the  same  certainty  to  the  friend  to  Avhom  his  treatises 
are  addressed.  Nothing  hinders  but  that  this  very  investi- 
gation may  have  been  prompted  by  an  impulse  which  ter- 
minated in  that  very  dictation  of  the  Spirit  without  which 
his  book  is  entitled  to  no  special  authority.  Mr.  Morell  is 
not  surely  to  learn  that  the  theory  of  verbal  inspiration 
contemplates  something  more  than  organic  influence ;  that 
it  represents  the  sentiments  and  language  as  the  sentiments 
and  language  of  the  writers  as  well  as  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
God  employed  the  minds  of  the  Apostles,  with  all  their 
faculties  and  powers,  distinctively  as  minds,  and  not  as 
machines,  to  communicate  His  own  will  in  His  own  words 
to  mankind.  Through  their  thoughts,  memories,  reasonings, 
studies  and  inquiries  He  infused  His  truth  into  their  hearts, 
put  His  words  into  their  lips  and  impressed  His  own  decla- 
rations on  the  written  page.  How  these  things  can  be  we 
profess  not  to  determine.  Our  philosophy  cannot  penetrate 
the  mysteries  of  God.  But  we  have  the  faculty  of  believing 
where  we  cannot  explain.  The  incarnate  Word  was  man 
and  God  in  one  person  and  two  distinct  natures,  and  His 
divinity  stamped  ineffable  value  upon  the  deeds  and  suffer- 
ings of  his  humanity.  The  written  Word  is  Divine  and 
human  in  mysterious  concurrence,  and  the  Divine  invests  it 
with  all  its  value  and  authority  as  a  conclusive  standard  of 
faith.  "We  grant,"  says  Dr.  Owen,*  "that  the  sacred  wri- 
ters used  their  own  abilities  of  mind  and  understanding  in 
the  choice  of  words  and  expressions.  So  the  preacher 
sought  to  find  out  acceptable  words.  Eccles.  xii.  10.  But 
1  Works,  vol.  ii.,  p.  159— Holy  Spirit,  book  2d,  chap.  i. 


Sect.  I.]  AN    EXTERNAL   STANDARD    VINDICATED.  65 

the  Holy  Spirit,  who  is  more  intimate  into  the  minds  and 
skill  of  men  than  they  are  themselves,  did  so  guide  and 
operate  in  them  as  that  the  words  they  fixed  upon  were  as 
directly  and  certainly  from  Him  as  if  they  had  been  spoken 
to  them  by  an  audible  voice."  "God,"  says  Haldane,^ 
"did  not  leave  them  to  the  operation  of  their  own  mind, 
but  has  employed  the  operations  of  their  mind  in  His  Word. 
The  Holy  Spirit  could  dictate  to  them  His  own  words  in 
such  a  way  that  they  would  also  be  their  own  words,  uttered 
with  the  understanding.  He  could  express  the  same 
thought  by  the  mouth  of  a  thousand  persons,  each  in  his 
own  style."  It  is  upon  this  obvious  principle  that  God 
employed  them  as  intelligent  agents,  that  they  were  re- 
quired to  give  attendance  to  all  the  ordinary  means  of  im- 
proving their  faculties,  to  reading,  study,  meditation  and 
prayer,  to  mutual  consultation  and  advice,  and  to  all  the 
ordinances  of  the  Christian  Church.  They  were,  by  no 
means,  like  Balaam's  ass,  the  passive  vehicles  of  articulate 
sounds;  God  spoke  through  their  voice,  and  communicated 
ideas  through  their  minds. 

The  second  proposition — that  the  Primitive  Church  did 
not  look  upon  the  writings  of  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists 
as  verbally  inspired — is  so  ludicrously  false,  and  betrays 
such  disgraceful  ignorance  of  the  history  of  opinions  upon 
the  subject,  that  very  few  words  will  be  sufficient  to  despatch 
it.  It  is  well  known  to  every  scholar  that  the  theory  of 
verbal  dictation,  stated  often  in  such  forms  as  to  make  the 
sacred  writers  merely  passive  instruments  of  Divine  com- 
munications, is  the  oldest  theory  in  the  Christian  Church. 
Justin,  Athenagoras,  Macarius  and  Chrysostom  very  fre- 
quently compare  them  to  musical  instruments,  which  obey 
the  breath  of  the  performer  in  the  sounds  they  emit.  Ma- 
carius tells  us  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  epistles  which 
God,  the  King,  has  sent  to  men.^     Chrysostom  affirms  that 

^  Haldane  on  Inspiration,  p.  117. 

2  All  the  quotations  which  follow  may  be  found  with  many  others  in 
Suicerus,  Article  ypa'Pv,  and  Conybeare's  Bampton  Lectures,  Lecture  1 
Vol.  III.— 5 


66  STANDARD    AND    NATURE   OF    RELIGION.         [Sect.  I. 

"all  the  Scriptures  have  been  written  and  sent  to  us,  not  by 
servants,  but  by  God,  the  Master  of  all" — that  "the  words 
which  they  utter  are  the  words  of  God  Himself."  He  tells 
us,  farther,  that  even  their  very  syllables  contain  some  hid- 
den treasure;  that  nothing  is  vain  or  superfluous  about 
them,  everything  being  the  appointment  of  the  wise'  and 
omniscient  God.  The  same  opinions  are  found  also  in 
Origen,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Irenfeus  and  Gregory  Thau- 
maturgus.  And  yet  the  Primitive  Church  attributed  no 
verbal  inspiration  to  the  authors  of  the  Gospels  and  Epis- 
tles! It  is  notorious,  too,  that  the  same  terms  of  respect 
which  the  Jews  were  accustomed  to  appropriate  to  their 
canon  were  promiscuously  applied  by  the  Christian  Fathers 
to  the  whole  canon  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  to  the 
books  particularly  of  the  New  Testament.^  They  were 
called  by  Irenpeus,  Divine  Scriptures,  Divine  Oracles,  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Lord ;  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Sacred  Books, 
Divine  Scriptures,  Divinely -inspired  Scriptures,  Scriptures 
of  the  Lord,  the  true  Evangelical  Canon;  by  Origen,  the 
whole  canon  was  called  the  Ancient  and  New  Oracles;  by 
Cyprian,  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  distin- 
guished as  Boohs  of  the  Spirit,  Divine  Fountains,  Fountain 
of  the  Divine  Fidlness.  We  hope  Mr.  Morell  will  look  a 
little  into  history  before  he  ventures  to  assert  again  that 
"  in  the  early  period  of  the  Christian  Church  the  writings 
which  now  compose  the  New  Testament  Canon  were  not 
all  regarded  as  express  messages  to  them  from  God." 

The  third  proposition  is,  that  these  books  were  not  collected 
because  they  were  the  canon  or  authoritative  rule  of  faith, 
but  because  they  contained  interesting  memorials  of  apos- 
tolic teaching  and  labours.  If  INIr.  INIorell  has  not  sufficient 
leisure  to  peruse  the  documents  of  ecclesiastical  antiquity, 
he  will  find  in  the  treatise  appended  to  the  Corpus  et  Syn- 
tagma Coufessionum,  or  the  Consent  of  the  Ancient  Fathers 

at  tlie  end.  The  reader  is  also  referred  to  Taylor's  Ductor  Dub.,  Book  2d, 
Chap,  iii.,  Rule  14. 

^  Paley's  Evidences,  Part  1,  Chap,  ix.,  §  4. 


Sect.  I.]  AX    EXTERNAL    STAXDARD    VINDICATED.  67 

to  the  Doctrines  of  the  Reformation,  a  very  satisfactory 
account  of  the  precise  light  in  which  the  Primitive  Church 
looked  upon  the  Holy  Scriptures.  In  the  mean  time,  we 
may  inform  our  readers  that  she  had  exactly  the  same  notions 
of  their  Divine  authority  as  the  arbiter  of  faith  and  the 
judge  of  controversies  which  all  evangelical  Christians  noAv 
entertain  of  them.  "It  behoveth,"  says  Basil  of  Csesarea, 
"that  every  word  and  every  work  should  be  accredited  by 
the  testimony  of  the  inspired  Scripture."  "Let  the  in- 
spired Scriptures,"  he  says  again,  "ever  be  our  umpire,  and 
on  whichever  side  the  doctrines  are  found  accordant  to  the 
Divine  Word,  to  that  side  the  award  of  truth  may,  with 
entire  certainty,  be  given."  And  still  again,  "It  is  the  duty 
of  hearers,  when  they  have  been  instructed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, to  try  and  examine,  by  them,  the  things  spoken  by 
their  teachers,  to  receive  whatever  is  consonant  to  those 
Scriptures,  and  to  reject  whatever  is  alien;  for  thus  they 
will  comply  with  the  injunction  of  St.  Paul,  to  prove  all 
things,  and  hold  fast  that  which  is  good."  "We  have 
known  the  economy  of  our  salvation,"  says  Irenseus,  "  by 
no  other  but  by  those  by  whom  the  Gospel  came  to  us; 
which  truly  they  then  preached,  but  afterward,  by  the  will 
of  God,  delivered  to  us  in  the  Scriptures,  which  were  to  be 
the  pillar  and  ground  of  our  faith." 

The  facts  upon  which  ]\Ir.  INIorell  relies  to  give  counte- 
nance to  his  notions  in  refei'ence  to  the  early  estimate  of 
the  Scriptures  prove  to  our  minds  exactly  the  reverse. 
Why,  when  the  primitive  Christians  were  pressed  by  heresy, 
were  they  so  anxious  to  be  ascertained  of  the  apostolic  writ- 
ings, if  these  writings  were  not  a  standard  of  truth  ?  Why 
so  cautious  in  their  inquiries,  so  watchful  against  impostures 
and  frauds,  so  thorough  in  their  investigations,  if  Avhen 
they  had  agreed  upon  the  genuine  productions  of  the  Apos- 
tles they  w^ere  no  nearer  settling  their  controversies  than 
they  were  before  ?  Can  any  satisfactory  reason  be  assigned, 
but  that  of  the  eloquent  and  fervid  Chrysostom  ? — 

"The  apostolical  writings  are  the  very  walls  of  the  Church.     Some 


68  STANDAKD   AND   NATURE   OF   KELIGION.         [Skct.  I. 

one,  perhaps,  may  ask,  What  then  shall  1  do,  who  cannot  have  a  Paul 
to  refer  to  ?  Wh.v,  if  thou  wilt,  thou  mayest  still  have  him  more 
entire  than  many  even  with  whom  he  was  personally  present,  for  it 
was  not  the  sight  of  Paul  that  made  them  what  they  were,  but  his 
words.  If  thou  wilt,  thou  mayest  have  Paul  and  Peter  and  John, 
yea,  and  the  whole  choir  of  Prophets  and  Apostles,  to  converse  with 
thee  frequently.  Only  take  the  works  of  these  blessed  men  arid  read 
their  writings  assiduously.  But  why  do  I  say  to  thee,  Thou  mayest 
have  Paul?  If  thou  wilt,  thou  mayest  have  Paul's  Master;  for  it  is 
He  Himself  that  speaketh  to  thee  in  Pavd's  words." 

The  Apostles  themselves  were  to  the  first  churches  which 
they  collected  the  Oracles  of  God.  They  were  inspired  to 
teach  and  publish  the  whole  counsel  of  God  in  reference  to 
the  Church.  The  words  which  they  spake  were  not  theirs, 
but  those  of  Christ  who  sent  them.  To  all  future  genera- 
tions their  writings  were  designed  to  occupy  the  position 
which  they  themselves  occupied  towards  the  first  converts. 
In  these  writings  we  now  have  what  God  originally  spake 
through  them.  The  care  and  anxiety  of  the  primitive 
churches  to  guard  against  delusion  and  deceit  were  owing 
to  the  belief  that  all  apostolic  compositions — that  is,  all  com- 
positions written  either  directly  by  themselves  or  commended 
as  inspired  by  their  approbation — were,  in  the  proper  accep- 
tation of  the  term,  canonical;  they  were  a  rule  of  faith — 
they  were  the  Word  of  God.  This  being  the  state  of  the 
case,  no  book  was  received  as  of  apostolical  authority  but 
after  full  and  complete  investigation.  The  evidences  of  its 
origin  were  thoroughly  canvassed.  The  question  was. 
What  books  has  God  sent  to  us  ?  or,  in  the  language  of 
Chrysostom,  What  epistles  has  God  sent  to  us  as  the  stand- 
ard of  truth?  The  answer  was,  Those  which  the  Apostles, 
in  the  discharge  of  their  apostolic  commission,  either  wrote 
themselves  or  sanctioned  as  written  by  others.  What  books 
were  these?  The  Primitive  Church  finally  settled  this 
question  when  it  agreed  upon  the  canon  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  whole  history  of  the  matter  shows  that  these 
documents  were  honoured,  not  as  memorials  of  Peter,  James 
and  Jolui,  but  as  the  words  of  the  Master  communicated 


Sect.  I.]         AN    EXTERNAL   STANDARD   VINDICATED.  69 

through  them.  Mark  and  Luke  were  not  Apostles  them- 
selves, and  yet  they  are  included  in  the  canon,  and  entitled 
to  the  same  authority  with  Paul  or  any  other  Apostle.  The 
reason  was,  that  the  early  Church  had  satisfactory  evidence 
that  they  wrote  under  the  same  guidance  which  was  prom- 
ised to  the  Twelve.  Mr.  Morell  is  therefore  grossly  at  fault 
in  maintaining  that  the  Apostles  themselves  made  no  pre- 
tensions to  verbal  or  plenary  inspiration,  that  the  Primitive 
Church  did  not  accord  it  to  them,  and  that  their  writings 
were  not  regarded  as  a  Divine  and  infallible  canon  of  truth. 
The  testimony  of  history  is  clearly,  strongly,  decidedly  against 
him;  and  any  conclusions  against  the  theory  of  a  Divine 
commission  which  he  has  drawn  from  the  monstrous  propo- 
sitions which,  as  we  have  seen,  have  no  existence  but  in  the 
fictions  of  his  own  fancy,  are  nothing  worth. 

There  remain  two  other  arguments  by  which  he  attempts 
to  set  aside  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  The 
first  is  the  defective  morality  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the 
second  is  the  inconsistencies  and  discrepancies  of  the  sacred 
writers.  As  to  the  first,  it  is  obvious,  from  the  whole  tenor 
of  the  JSTew  Testament,  that  it  professes  to  make  no  new 
revelations  in  morality ;  it  is  only  a  commentary  on  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets.  The  great  principle  which  is  supposed 
by  many  to  be  characteristic  of  the  Gospel,  that  we  should 
love  the  Lord  our  God  with  all  our  hearts,  and  our  neigh- 
bours as  ourselves,  is  distinctly  inculcated  by  Moses;  while 
patience  under  injuries,  alms  to  the  indigent  and  kindness 
to  the  poor,  afflicted  and  oppressed,  are  the  reigning  spirit 
of  the  ancient  institute.  The  Israelites  were  indeed  com- 
missioned to  wage  exterminating  wars  against  the  devoted 
objects  of  Divine  wrath,  but  in  these  instances  they  were 
the  scourge  of  God.  It  was  not  to  gratify  their  private 
resentments  or  national  ambition,  but  to  execute  the  ven- 
geance of  Heaven,  that  they  were  commanded  to  destroy 
the  tribes  of  Cauaan.  They  were  as  the  plague,  pestilence 
and  famine  in  the  hands  of  the  Almighty — God  was  the 
real  destroyer ;  they  were  but  the  instruments  of  His  will, 


70  STANDARD    AND    NATURE    OF    RELIGION.  [Sect.  I. 

and  they  departed  from  every  principle  of  their  institute 
if  they  suffered  themselves  to  be  influenced  by  private 
mialice.  There  are  other  instances  in  which  deeds  of  treach- 
ery and  deceit  are  recorded,  but  there  is  a  huge  difference 
betwixt  recording  and  approving  them.  The  drunkenness  of 
Xoah — if  indeed  he  were  drunk,  which  we  very  much  doubt 
— the  lies  of  Abraham,  the  cruelty  of  Sarah,  the  incest  of 
Lot,  the  frauds  of  Jacob  and  the  adultery  of  David  were 
written  not  for  our  example,  but  our  warning.  There  are 
other  instances  in  which  the  moral  import  of  the  same 
material  action  was  very  different  then  from  what  it  is  now. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  the  pi-ogress  of  society  rela- 
tions may  be  developed  and  causes  unfolded  which  shall 
make  an  act  criminal  in  one  age  that  Avas  perfectly  blame- 
less, in  another.  Incest  was  lawful  in  the  family  of  Adam ; 
under  a  certain  contingency  a  Jew  might  marry  his  brother's 
widow ;  and  it  remains  to  be  proved  that,  in  the  early  con- 
dition of  Eastern  civilization,  the  habits  and  customs  which 
now  provoke  our  censure  were  possessed  of  the  same  moral 
import  which  attaches  to  them  now.  "With  these  distinc- 
tions and  limitations,  we  have  no  hesitation  in  asserting 
that  the  morality  of  the  Old  Testament  is  precisely  what 
we  might  expect  it  to  be  upon  the  theory  of  verbal  inspira- 
tion. The  great  duties  of  piety  and  religion,  of  truth, 
justice  and  benevolence,  the  charities  of  life,  the  virtues  of 
the  citizen,  the  master  and  tlie  man,  the  husband,  the  father 
and  the  son,  are  all  impressed  under  the  ancient  economy 
with  the  sanctions  peculiar  to  that  dispensation.  There  is 
nothing  impure,  immoral,  unworthy  of  God. 

As  to  inconsistencies  and  discrepancies  in  the  sacred 
writers  which  cannot  be  fairly  explained,  we  simply  deny 
them.  Mr.  Morell  charges  them  with  inconclusiveness  of 
reasoning,  defects  of  memory  and  contradictions  to  science 
and  themselves  in  their  statements  of  fact.  When  he  con- 
descends to  specify  the  instances,  and  to  j^^'ove  that  his  alle- 
gations are  true,  it  will  be  time  to  answer  yet  again  these 
exploded  cavils  of  infidelity,  which  have  a  thousand  times 


Sect.  I.]  AN    EXTERNAL    STANDARD    VINDICATED.  71 

been  refuted,  and  Avliich  he  ought  to  know  to  be  worthless. 
In  regard  to  defects  of  memory,  we  beg  him  to  recollect  that 
any  effort  to  substantiate  this  charge  may  involve  an  effort 
to  cast  a  serious  imputation  upon  the  moral  character  of 
Jesus  Christ  Himself.  If  there  was  anything  which  He 
distinctly  and  unequivocally  promised  to  His  Apostles,  it 
Avas  that  the  Holy  Ghost  should  teach  them  all  things  and 
bring  all  things  to  their  remembrance  which  He  himself  had 
said  unto  them. 

There  is  indeed  one  specification  which  he  has  made — 
the  inconsistency  of  geological  speculations  with  the  Mo- 
saic cosmogony.  Mr.  Morell,  however,  is  not  ignorant  that 
the  Mosaic  narrative  contradicts  not  a  single  fact  of  de- 
scriptive geology.  All  that  she  reports  of  the  shape  of  the 
earth,  its  minerals,  and  fossils,  its  marks  of  convulsion  and 
violence, — all  these  faets  may  be  fully  admitted,  and  yet 
not  a  line  of  Moses  be  impugned.  It  is  only  when  the 
geologist  proceeds  to  the  causes  of  his  facts,  and  invents 
hypotheses  to  explain  them,  that  any  inconsistency  takes 
place;  and  this  inconsistency  is  evidently  not  betwixt 
geology  and  religion,  but  geologists  and  Moses.  It  is  a 
war  of  theories,  of  speculation  and  conjecture,  against  the 
historical  fidelity  of  a  record  supported  by  evidence  in 
comparison  with  which  they  dwindle  into  the  merest  fig- 
ments of  the  brain. 

There  is  one  other  consideration  which  demands  our 
notice,  and  which  we  have  reserved  to  this  place,  because 
it  is  evidently  not  an  argument  against  the  abstract  possi- 
bility of  a  Divine  theology — being  not  at  all  inconsistent 
with  the  patristic  notion  of  organic  inspiration — but  against 
that  view  of  the  manner  in  which  a  Divine  theology  has 
been  communicated  which  we  have  felt  it  our  duty  to  de- 
fend.    Mr.  Morell  asserts, 

"That  the  whole  of  the  logical  2:>roeesses  of  the  human  mind  are 
such  that  the  idea  of  a  revelation  is  altogether  incompatible  with 
them,  that  they  are  in  no  sense  open  to  its  influence,  and  that  they 
can  neither  be  improved  nor  assisted  by  it.     All  our  logical  processes 


72  STANDARD   AND    NATURE   OF    RELIGION.         [Sect,  I. 

of  mind,  all  the  operations  of  the  understanding,  take  place  in  accord- 
ance with  the  most  fixed  and  determinate  laws,  those  which  are 
usually  termed  the  laws  of  thought.  Whatever  can  be  infeiTcd  by 
these  laws,  whatever  can  be  derived  in  any  way  from  them,  must  be 
strictly  within  the  natural  capacity  of  the  human  mind  to  attain.  If, 
on  the  contrary,  there  be  anything  which  these  laws  of  thought  are 
naturally  unable  to  reach,  no  extraneous  influence  whatever  could  give 
thera  the  power  of  reaching  it.  The  laws  of  thought  are  immovable 
—to  alter  them  would  be  to  subvert  the  whole  constitution  of  the 
human  intellect.  Whatever  is  once  within  their  reach  is  always  so. 
Correct  reasoning  could  never  be  subverted  by  revelation  itself;  bad 
reasoning  could  never  be  improved  by  it."  ^ 

We  are  not  sure  that  we  understand  this  passage.  If 
the  author  means  that  our  logical  processes  do  not  originate 
the  materials  upon  which  they  are  employed,  what  he  says 
may  be  true,  but  it  is  nothing  to  the  purpose;  but  if  he 
means  that  the  mind  being  already  in  possession  of  all  the 
simple  ideas  upon  which  it  is  to  operate,  God,  in  consistency 
with  its  own  laws,  cannot  secure  the  understanding  from 
error,  what  he  says  is  contradictory  to  the  revelation  of  a 
theology  through  the  agency  of  men,  upon  any  other 
hypothesis  but  that  of  organic  inspiration.  The  cpiestion  is 
not  whether  any  Divine  influence  can  make  bad  reasoning 
good  or  good  reasoning  bad,  but  whether  God  can  exempt 
men  from  the  bad,  and  infallibly  conduct  them  to  the  good, 
without  subverting  their  intellectual  constitution. 

Mr.  Morell  will  hardly  deny  that  if  all  the  conditions 
and  laws  which  ought  to  be  observed  in  the  processes  of  the 
understanding  were  faithfully  regarded,  there  would  be  no 
danger  of  fallacy  or  mistake.  Error  is  the  result  of  dis- 
obedience or  inattention  to  the  laws  of  our  own  nature — the 
punishment  of  intellectual  guilt.  The  naked  question  then 
is,  whether  God,  by  any  subjective  influence  on  the  soul, 
can  preserve  it  from  eccentricity  and  disorder,  and  keep  it 
in  harmony  with  the  essential  conditions  of  its  healthful 
operation.  Surely  it  is  no  subversion  of  the  constitution  of 
the  mind  to  have  that  constitution  protected  from  violence 
1  Pages  141,  142. 


Sect.  L]         AN    EXTERNAL    STANDARD    VINDICATED.  73 

and  eucroacliment.  The  soul  is  more  truly  itself  when  it 
moves  in  the  orbit  prescribed  for  it  than  when  it  deserts  its 
pioper  path  and  wanders  into  forbidden  regions.  If  God 
cannot  exert  a  controlling  influence  upon  the  understanding, 
it  must  be  because  there  is  something  in  the  nature  of  its 
faculties  or  exercises  incompatible  with  the  direct  inter- 
ference of  the  Deity.  Now  the  faculties  which  belong  to 
it  are,  according  to  our  author's  own  statement/  memory, 
conception,  imagination,  abstraction  and  generalization,  to 
which  may  be  added  the  association  of  ideas;  and  the  pro- 
cesses which  belong  to  it  are  definition,  division,  judgment 
and  reasoning,  whether  inductive  or  deductive.  Not  to 
enter  at  this  stage  of  the  discussion  into  any  metaphysical  an- 
alysis, it  is  obvious  that  these  faculties  exist,  among  different 
men,  in  very  different  degrees  of  perfection,  and  these  pro- 
cesses are  conducted  with  very  different  degrees  of  correct- 
ness, and  yet  their  essential  nature  is  the  same  in  all.  If, 
then,  by  the  act  of  God,  there  can  be  different  degrees  of 
memory  in  different  persons  without  any  infringement  of 
the  laws  of  memory,  why  may  there  not  be  different  degrees 
in  the  same  person?  If  God  can  make  one  man  reason 
better  than  another,  without  disturbing  the  laws  of  ratioci- 
nation, why  cannot  He  make  the  same  man  reason  at  one 
time  better  than  he  reasoned  at  another?  Can  He  not  impart 
additional  clearness  to  conception,  vigour  to  imagination, 
nicety  to  analysis,  and  accuracy  to  the  perception  of  those 
resemblances  and  relations  upon  which  generalization  and 
reasoning  proceed?  The  truth  is,  one  of  the  most  myste- 
rious features  connected  with  the  human  mind  is  its  suscep- 
tibility of  growth  and  improvement  without  receiving 
additions  to  its  substance.  Perfectly  simple  and  indisccrp- 
tible  in  its  own  nature,  incapable  of  enlargement  by  accre- 
tion, it  yet  begins,  in  the  simplest  operations  of  sense,  to 
exert  an  activity  which  waxes  stronger  and  better  in  every 
successive  period  of  its  existence,  and  to  the  development 
of  which  there  seem  to  be  no  natural  limits.  All  the  ex- 
^  Page  15. 


74  STANDARD    AND    NATURE    OF    RELIGION.  [Skct.  1. 

prcssions  by  Avliich  we  represent  this  change  are  borrowed 
from  material  analogies,  and  are  evidently  liable  to  the 
abuse  which,  from  such  applications,  has  made  the  history 
of  philosophy  too  much  a  history  of  confusion.  In  rela- 
tion to  our  minds,  much  more  than  in  relation  to  our  bodies, 
we  are  fearfully  and  wonderfully  made.  And  if  the  natural 
order  of  improvement  is  a  mystery,  profound  and  imjjene- 
trable — if  we  are  unable  to  comprehend,  much  less  to  ex- 
plain, how  a  single  substance,  remaining  unchanged  in  its 
essence,  shall  exhibit  those  wonderful  phenomena  which  we 
can  liken  to  nothing  but  growth,  expansion  and  enlarge- 
ment in  material  objects — surely  it  is  too  much  to  say  that 
in  this  world  of  mystery  another  mystery  still  cannot  be 
found,  that  of  supernatural  improvement,  in  which  every 
faculty  shall  faithfully  obey  the  laws  of  its  structure.  To 
us  the  idea  that  any  creature,  in  any  of  its  operations,  can 
be  independent  of  God,  involves  a  gross  contradiction. 
Absolute  dependence  is  the  law  of  its  being.  As  without 
the  concursus  of  the  Deity  it  must  cease  to  exist,  so  His 
sustentation  and  support  are  essential  to  every  form  of 
action,  every  degree  of  development,  every  step  in  improve- 
ment. It  is  only  in  God  that  it  can  live  and  move,  as  it 
is  only  in  God  that  it  has  its  subsistence.  We  see  no  more 
difficulty  in  supposing  that  God  can  superintend  and  direct 
the  various  processes  of  the  understanding  than  in  admitting 
that  He  created  its  powers  in  the  first  instance,  and  impressed 
upon  them  the  laws  which  they  ought  to  observe.  Prov- 
idence is  no  more  wonderful  than  creation. 

Mr.  Morell  admits  that  the  Deity  can  exert  a  subjective 
influence  upon  the  intuitional  faculties,  that  they  can  be 
elevated  to  a  supernatural  degree  of  intensity,  and  that  this 
is  actually  done  in  the  phenomenon  of  inspiration.  AMiy, 
then,  should  the  understanding  not  be  accessible  to  God  ? 
If  He  can  touch  the  soul  in  one  point,  why  not  in  another? 
If  He  can  improve  its  vision,  what  hinders  but  that  He 
may  regulate  and  assist  its  reflection  ?  That  He  can  turn 
the  hearts  of  men  as  the  rivers  of  water  are  turned ;  that  the 


Sect.  L]         AN    EXTERNAL   STANDARD   VINDICATED.  75 

spirits  of  all  jElesli,  in  the  full  integrity  of  tlieir  faculties, 
are  as  completely  in  His  hands  as  clay  in  the  hands  of  the 
potter;  that  He  can  bring  every  proud  thought  and  lofty 
imagination  into  humble  obedience  to  his  will;  that  the 
whole  man  is  absolutely  and  unresistingly  in  His  power, 
so  that  He  can  direct  its  steps  without  a  contravention  of 
the  laws  of  its  being, — is  the  only  hypothesis  upon  which 
the  great  evangelical  doctrine  of  regeneration  is  consistent 
or  possible.  The  work  of  the  Spirit  is  represented  as  ex- 
tending to  the  whole  soul ;  it  gives  eyes  to  the  blind,  ears 
to  the  deaf,  knowledge  to  the  ignorant,  wisdom  to  the  fool- 
ish. It  enlightens  the  mind,  purifies  the  heart,  cleanses 
the  imagination,  purges  the  conscience,  stimulates  the  mem- 
ory, quickens  the  judgment,  and  imparts  an  unwonted  apt- 
itude in  the  perception  of  spiritual  relations.  As  there  is 
not  a  faculty  which  has  not  suffered  from  the  ruins  of  the 
Fall,  so  there  is  not  a  faculty  which  does  not  share  in  the 
restoration  of  grace.  The  testimony  of  Scripture  may  be 
nothing  to  Mr.  Morell;  but  as  his  presumptuous  asser- 
tion is  unsupported  by  anything  in  his  own  mental  analysis ; 
as  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  analogy  which  the  case  of 
intuition,  confessed  by  him  to  be  susceptible  of  supernatural 
influence,  obviously  suggests;  as  there  is  nothing  in  the 
nature  of  the  understanding,  in  any  of  its  faculties  or  ex- 
ercises, which  places  it  beyond  the  reach  of  Divine  regula- 
tion ;  as  there  is  no  more  absurdity  in  God's  governing  than 
in  God's  creating  its  powers, — we  may  safely  receive  the 
declarations  of  the  Bible,  as  well  as  the  dictates  of  common 
sense,  until  we  have  some  better  reason  for  calling  them  into 
question  than  the  ipse  dixit  of  a  transcendental  philosopher. 
And  that  theory  is  certainly  reduced  to  a  desperate  ex- 
tremity which  allows  its  author  no  refuge  but  a  bold  and 
impudent  denial  of  the  essential  attributes  of  God.  What- 
ever does  not  involve  a  contradiction,  and  so  prove  itself  to 
be  nothing,  lies  within  the  boundless  range  of  possibilities 
which  Almighty  power  can  achieve.  It  is  the  folly  and 
blasphemy  of  the  wicked  to  reduce  their  Creator  to  their 


76  STANDARD   AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.         [Sect.  I. 

level,  to  make  Him  altogether  such  an  one  as  they  tliem- 
selves,  and  to  measure  His  resources  by  their  own  insignif- 
icant capacities.  It  is  His  prerogative  to  lift  His  hand  and 
swear  that  as  He  lives  for  ever,  so  He  shall  accomplish  all 
His  will,  and  rule  alike  the  minds  and  bodies  He  has 
framed.  Our  God  is  in  the  heavens.  He  has  done  what- 
soever He  hath  pleased;  and  if  among  the  things  which 
have  pleased  Him  were  the  purpose  to  communicate  a  Di- 
vine theology  through  the  minds  and  understandings  of 
men,  there  could  have  been  no  impediment  which  His  power 
could  not  easily  surmount. 

We  shall  here  finish  our  examination  of  the  book  before 
us  with  reference  to  the  soundness  of  its  logic.  The  single 
point  to  which  our  remarks  have  been  directed  is,  whether 
the  conclusions  are  legitimately  drawn  from  the  premises. 
We  have  admitted,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  the  principles 
of  the  author's  philosophy.  We  have  not  called  in  ques- 
tion his  psychology,  his  analysis  of  religion,  or  his  accounts 
of  revelation  and  inspiration.  Our  object  has  been  to  dis- 
cover whether,  granting  all  these,  the  popular  faith  in  re- 
gard to  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  is  necessarily  sub- 
verted. We  have  attempted  to  show  that  though  his 
philosophy  pretends  to  be  an  a  'priori  argument  against  the 
possibility  of  this  notion  being  true,  it  demonstrates  notliing 
to  the  purpose;  that  revelation,  in  his  sense,  is  not  exclusive 
of  revelation  in  its  common  and  ordinary  acceptation ;  and 
that  his  inspiration  is  by  no  means  inconsistent  Avith  the 
inspiration  of  the  vulgar  faith.  Divest  his  argument  of 
the  ambiguity  of  language,  and  of  the  gratuitous  assumja- 
tion  that  the  agency  which  he  admits  is  the  sole  agency  of 
God,  and  it  is  divested  of  all  pertinency  and  force.  We 
have  gone  still  farther,  and  convicted  of  weakness  and  con- 
fusion all  his  efforts  to  render  useless  and  unnecessary  the 
existence  of  a  canon  such  as  the  Bible  professes  to  be.  Out 
of  his  own  mouth  have  we  condemned  him.  As  a  philo- 
sophical argument,  therefore,  we  are  compelled  to  say  that 
his  book  is  utterly  wanting — that  so  far  from  demonstrat- 


Sect.  I.]         AN    EXTERNAL   STANDARD   VINDICATED.  77 

ing  that  a  revealed  theology  is  a  psychological  absurdity, 
he  has  beaten  his  drums  and  flourished  his  trumpets  when 
the  enemy  had  not  been  even  in  sight.  We  have  also  fol- 
lowed him  in  his  arguments  addressed  to  the  question  as  a 
matter  of  fact.  We  have  seen  that  he  is  at  fault  in  charg- 
ing the- popular  faith  with  a  total  destitution  of  positive 
proof,  and  that  all  his  objections  to  the  plenary  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures,  whether  founded  on  varieties  of  style,  the 
necessity  of  Divine  illumination,  the  diminution  of  our  re- 
spect for  the  sacred  writers,  the  history  of  the  canon,  the 
immoralities,  absurdities  and  contradictions  of  the  Bible, 
or  the  alleged  impossibility  of  a  Divine  revelation  through 
the  understandings  of  men,  are  capable  of  an  easy  and 
obvious  refutation.  The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter 
is,  that  as  an  infidel  assault  his  book  is  a  signal  failure. 
For  anything  that  he  has  proved  to  the  contrary,  by  either 
a  priori  or  a  posteriori  reasoning,  the  Bible  may  be  what 
the  Christian  world  has  always  been  accustomed  to  regard 
it.  But  a  harder  task  remains  yet  to  be  performed.  His 
philosophy  must  be  brought  to  the  touchstone  of  truth ; 
and  we  hope  at  no  distant  day  to  be  able  to  convince  our 
readers  that  no  better  success  has  attended  his  speculations 
than  has  rewarded  his  efforts  to  apply  them. 


SECTIOI^    II. 

RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY  CONSIDERED. 

HAYIXG,  ill  our  former  article,  considered  the  work  of 
Mr.  Morell  as  an  argument  against  an  authoritative 
theology,  we  proceed,  according  to  our  promise,  to  examine 
the  philosophy  on  which  the  argument  is  founded.  This 
task  we  undertake  with  unfeigned  reluctance.  The  ques- 
tions which  it  involves  demand  a  poAver  of  analysis,  a  pa- 
tience of  reflection,  an  intensity  of  thought,  a  depth  of 
investigation  and  an  amplitude  of  learning  to  which,  we 
are  conscious,  we  can  make  no  pretensions.  We  always 
return  from  the  stucb^  of  the  great  problems  of  human 
knowledge  with  a  conviction  of  littleness,  incapacity  and 
ignorance  which,  though  the  process  by  which  it  has  been 
produced  has  disclosed  enough  to  prevent  us  from  "  despair- 
ing of  the  ultimate  possibility  of  philosophy,"  teaches  us  to 
commiserate  rather  than  denounce  the  errors  of  others,  and 
makes  us  feel  that  our  position  must  always  be  that  of 
humble  and  teachable  inquirers.  Far  from  dreaming  of 
the  attempt  to  originate  an  independent  system  of  our  own, 
or  even  to  combine  into  a  consistent  and  harmonious  whole 
the  various  elements  of  truth  which  may  be  elicited  from 
existing  systems,  we  are  content,  in  regard  to  these  high 
problems,  to  discharge  the  negative  office  of  refuting  error 
without  presuming  to  establish  its  contrary — of  saying  M'^hat 
is  not,  without  undertaking  to  declare  what  is,  truth.  The 
Avork  of  simple  destruction,  though  often  invidious,  is  some- 
times necessary.  In  the  case  before  us  we  shall  feel  our- 
selves to  be  the  authors  of  an  incalculable  good  if  we  can 
convict  Mr.  Morell's  philosophy  of  inconsistency  and  false- 

78 


Sect.  II.]       EELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.     79 

hood,  though  we  should  fail,  in  the  progress  of  the  argu- 
ment, to  make  a  single  direct  contribution  to  a  sounder 
system. 

This  philosophy  may  be  embraced  under  the  three  heads 
of  Psychology,  Religion  and  Revelation,  together  with  the 
connection  subsisting  between  them.  The  first  inquiry  of 
the  author  is  in  regard  to  the  subject  in  which  religion 
inheres.  What  is  it  that  is  religious?  Then  in  regard  to 
the  essence  of  religion  itself.  What  is  it  to  be  religious? 
And  finally  in  relation  to  the  mode  in  which  religion  is 
produced.  How  is  the  given  subject  put  in  possession  of  the 
given  essence?  The  answer  to  the  first  inquiry  constitutes 
his  Psychology ;  to  the  second,  his  Analysis  of  religion  in 
general  and  of  Christianity  in  particular;  to  the  last,  his 
Theories  of  Revelation  and  Inspiration.  As  to  the  con- 
nection subsisting  between  them,  the  nature  of  the  subject 
determines,  to  some  extent,  the  nature  of  religion ;  and  the 
nature  of  religion,  in  its  relations  to  the  subject,  determines 
the  mode  and  laws  of  its  production.  Mind  being  given, 
the  essential  element  of  Religion  is  given;  mind  and  relig- 
ion being  both  given,  the  characteristics  of  Revelation  are 
settled.  This  is  a  general  outline  of  the  discussions  of  the 
book.  We  begin  with  the  Psychology ;  and  that  our  readers 
may  fully  understand  the  strictures  which  we  shall  make 
upon  some  of  the  doctrines  of  our  author,  it  may  be  well  to 
give  a  preliminary  statement  of  the  essential  differences 
which  distinguish  existing  schools  of  philosophy. 

I.  Sir  William  Hamilton  has  very  justly  observed  that^ 
"  philosophy  proper  is  principally  and  primarily  the  science 
of  knowledge;  its  first  and  most  important  problem  being 
to  determine,  What  can  we  know?  that  is,  what  are  the 
conditions  of  our  knowing,  whether  these  lie  in  the  nature 
of  the  object,  or  in  the  nature  of  the  subject,  of  knowledge." 
The  origin,  nature,  and  extent  of  human  knowledge  are, 
accordingly,  the  questions  which  have  divided  the  schools, 
and  the  answers  which  have  been  returned  to  them  have 
1  Hamilton's  Keid,  page  808 :  Note. 


80  STANDARD    AND   NATURE   OF    RELIGION,       [Sect.  II. 

determined  the  place  which  their  authors  have  taken  in  the 
history  of  speculation. 

It  is  now  universally  conceded  that  all  knowledge  begins 
in  experience,  but  there  is  not  the  same  agreement  as  to 
the  conditions  which  are  essential  to  experience,  and  under 
which  alone  it  becomes  available.  In  one  class  of  opinions, 
the  mind,  at  its  first  exi.stence,  is  represented  as  a  tabula 
rasa  or  a  sheet  of  blank  paper,  upon  which,  from  without, 
are  written  the  characters  which,  contemplated  by  itself, 
constitute  the  sole  materials  of  cognition.  It  comes  into 
the  world  unfurnished,  an  empty  room,  and  the  world  fur- 
nishes it.  There  is,  on  the  one  hand,  a  capacity  to  receive, 
and  on  the  other  a  power  to  communicate ;  and  the  relation 
of  the  two  constitutes  experience.  Upon  the  materials  thus 
given  the  mind  can  operate — it  can  combine,  compare,  de- 
compose and  arrange — but  it  can  add  absolutely  nothing  to 
the  stock  which  has  been  imparted  to  it  as  a  passive  recip- 
ient. Experience  is  restricted  exclusively  to  sensation ; 
the  mind  is  a  machine,  and  its  various  faculties  the  tools 
with  which  it  works  up  the  materials  afforded  in  sensible 
phenomena.  This  low  and  contracted  hypothesis,  which 
sprang  from  a  corruption  of  Locke's  principles,  at  best 
partial  and  incomplete,  was  pushed  to  its  legitimate  con- 
sequences of  Atheistic  Materialism  and  the  blindest  chance 
by  the  celebrated  authors  of  the  French  Encyclopaedia. 
And  it  is  to  this  scheme  that  we  would  confine  the  distinct- 
ive title  of  Sensationalism. 

"We  need  not  say  that  the  Sensationalist  stumbles  at  the 
threshold.  He  gives  no  account  of  hnoioleclge:  to  receive 
ideas,  as  the  canvas  receives  the  impression  of  the  brush, 
is  not  to  know.  Intelligence  involves  judgment,  belief,  con- 
viction of  certainty,  not  merely  that  the  thing  is  there,  but, 
to  use  a  sensible  analogy,  seen  to  be  there.  No  mechanical 
activity,  however  delicate  and  refined,  is  competent  to  ex- 
plain the  peculiar  phenomenon  involved  in  the  feeling,  1 
know.  Experience,  therefore,  must  include  conditions  in 
the  subject  which  make  it  capable  of  intelligence.     There 


Skct.  il]     religion  psychologically  considered.   81 

must  be  a  constitution  of  mind  adapted  to  that  specific  activ- 
ity by  which  it  believes  and  judges,  as  it  is  only  by  virtue 
of  such  a  constitution  that  knowledge  can  be  extracted  from 
experience.  This  preparation  of  the  mind  to  know,  or  its 
adaptation  to  intelligence,  consists  in  subjecting  it  to  kiws 
of  belief  under  which  it  must  necessarily  act.  Its  energies 
can  be  exercised  only  under  the  condition  that  it  shall  know 
or  believe.  As  it  is  the  necessity  of  belief  which  distin- 
guishes intelligent  action  from  every  other  species  of  opera- 
tion, and  as  there  can  be  no  belief  without  the  belief  of 
something,  there  must  be  certain  primary  truths  involved 
in  the  very  structure  of  the  mind,  which  are  admitted  from 
the  simple  necessity  of  admitting  them.  As  undeveloped 
in  experience,  they  exist  not  in  the  form  of  propositions  or 
general  conceptions,  but  of  irresistible  tendencies  to  certain 
manners  of  belief  when  the  proper  occasions  shall  be 
afforded.  They  are  certain  "  necessities  of  thinking."  But, 
developed  in  experience  and  generalized  into  abstract  state- 
ments, they  are  original  and  elementary  cognitions,  the 
foundation  and  criterion  of  all  knowledge.  They  are  the 
standard  of  evidence,  the  light  of  the  mind,  and  without 
them  the  mind  could  no  more  be  conceived  to  know  than  a 
blind  man  to  see.  Being  in  the  mind,  a  part  of  its  very 
structure,  they  are  not  the  products  of  experience.  Essen- 
tial conditions  of  mental  activity,  they  are  not  the  results 
of  it.  As  experience  furnishes  the  occasions  on  which  they 
are  developed  or  become  manifest  in  consciousness,  it  is 
obviously  from  experience  that  we  know  them  as  mere  men- 
tal phenomena,  in  the  same  way  that  we  know  every  other 
faculty  of  mind ;  but  as  primitive  beliefs,  as  vouchers  and 
guarantees  for  the  truth  of  facts  beyond  "  their  own  phe- 
nomenal reality,"  ^  they  are  involved  in  the  very  conception 

1  For  a  masterly  dissertation  on  the  Philosophy  of  Common  Sense,  the 
reader  is  referred  to  Hamilton's  Eeid,  Appendix,  Note  A.  We  deem  it 
just  to  ourselves  (and  we  hope  we  shall  not  be  suspected  of  vanity )  to  say 
that  the  distinction  indicated  in  the  text,  and  the  corresponding  distinction 
in  regard  to  the  possibility  of  doubt  illustrated  by  Hamilton,  p.  744,  had 
occurred  to  us,  in  our  own  speculations,  before  we  had  ever  seen  his  book. 
Vol.  III.— 6 


82  STAXDAIJD    AND   NATURF:   OF    RELIGIOX.       [Sect.  II, 

of  experience.  ''Catholic  principles  of  all  philosophy," 
they  have  been  more  or  less  distinctly  recognized,  in  every 
school  and  by  every  sect,  from  the  dawn  of  speculation 
until  the  present  day.  According  to  the  different  aspects 
in  which  they  have  been  contemplated,  they  have  received 
different  titles,^  as  innate  truths,  first  principles,  maxims,  prin- 
ciples of  common  sense,  general  notions,  categories  of  the  un- 
derstanding and  ideas  of  pure  reason,  fundamental  laws  of 
belief  and  constituent  elements  of  reason;  but  whatever 
names  they  have  borne,  their  character  remains  unchanged 
of  original,  authoritative,  incomprehensible  faiths. 

Though  the  distinct  recognition  and  articulate  enuncia- 
tion of  these  principles  have  played  a  conspicuous  jjart  in 
tlie  speculations  of  modern  philosophers,  yet  the  admission 
of  them  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  characteristic  of  a  school. 
It  forms  a  class,  in  distinction  from  that  of  the  ultra  Sensa- 
tionalists, in  which  two  schools"  are  embraced,  discriminated 
from  each  other  by  the  application  which  they  make  of 
what  both  equally  admit.  They  are  divided  on  the  ques- 
tion of  the  relation  which  our  primary  cognitions  sustain 
to  the  whole  fabric  of  human  knowledge. 

One  party  represents  them  as  wholly  barren  and  unpro- 
ductive in  themselves — the  forms  of  knowledge  and  indis- 
pensable to  its  acquisition,  but  not  the  sources  from  which 
it  is  derived.  It  is  only  when,  acting  in  obedience  to  them, 
we  come  in  contact  with  objective  realities  that  we  truly  knoAv. 
All  knowledge  implies  the  relation  of  subject  and  object ; 
the  laws  of  belief  qualify  the  subject  to  know,  but  cannot 
give  the  thing  to  be  known.  Hence,  we  are  dependent  on 
experience  for  all  the  objects  of  knowledge.  The  mind, 
however  richly  furnished  with  all  the  capacities  of  cogni- 
tion and  belief,  however  intelligent  in  its  own  nature,  can- 
not create  by  the  laws  of  its  constitution  a  single  material 

^  See  g  5,  Note  A,  Hamilton's  Reid. 

^  "What  is  a  school  ?  It  is  a  certain  number  of  systems,  more  or  less 
connected  by  time,  but  especially  connected  by  intimate  relations,  and  still 
more  so  by  a  certain  similarity  of  principles  and  of  views."  Cousin,  In- 
troduct.  to  the  Hist.  Phil.,  Lect.  iv.,  Linberg's  Trans.,  p.  97. 


Sect.  II.]       RELIGIOX   PSYCHOLOGICALLY   CONSIDERED.     83 

of  thought.  The  description  of  our  iutelligent  constitution 
is  an  answer  to  the  question  how  we  know,  but  not  to  the 
equally  important  question  what  we  know.  There  must  be 
something  distinct  from  a  faculty,  something  to  Avhich  it  is 
applied  or  applies  itself  in  conformity  with  its  nature, 
before  the  relation  of  knowledge  can  obtain.  Or,  in  one 
Avord,  the  laws  of  belief  are  the  conditions  of  knowing,  but, 
in  themselves  considered,  are  not  knowledge.  They  are  not 
the  matter  of  an  argument,  but  the  criterion  of  the  truth 
of  any  and  of  every  premiss.  According  to  this  class  of 
philosophers,  experience  not  only  furnishes  the  occasions  on 
which  our  primitive  cognitions  are  developed,  but  furnishes 
the  objects  about  which  our  faculties  are  conversant.  It 
gives  us  the  toJiat  we  are  to  know.  From  the  importance 
which  this  school  attaches  to  induction,  it  may  be  pre-emi- 
nently styled  the  school  of  Experience} 

Others  represent  our  original  beliefs  not  merely  as  the 
criterion  of  truth  and  the  indispensable  conditions  of  know- 
ledge, but  as  the  data,  the  «/>/««,  in  which  are  imj^licitly 
contained  all  that  is  worthy  of  the  name  of  science.  We 
are  dependent  upon  experience  only  to  awaken  them,  but 
when  once  awakened  and  roused  into  action,  they  can  con- 
duct us  to  the  fountain  of  existence  and  solve  all  the  mys- 
teries of  the  universe.  As  reason  is  held  to  be  the  comple- 
ment of  these  universal  and  all-comprehensive  principles, 
this  class  of  philosophers  is  commonly  denominated  Ra- 
tionalists. 

Differing  as  widely  as  they  do  in  regard  to  the  matter  of 
our  knowledge,  it  is  not  to  be  w^ondered  at  that  these  tM'O 
great  schools  of  Rationalism  and  Experience  should  differ 
as  widely  in  relation  to  its  nature  and  extent  or  the  precise 
province  of  a  sound  philosophy.  Rationalism,  in  all  its 
forms,  aims  at  a  complete  science  of  Ontology;  it  pretends 
to  be,  in  the  language  of  Cousin,  "  the  absolute  intelli- 

^  For  a  very  full  and  satisfactory  account  of  the  relations  of  our  primary 
beliefs  to  human  knowledge,  the  reader  is  referred  to  Stewart's  Elements, 
vol.  ii.,  chap.  i. 


84  STANDARD    AND   NATURE   OF    RELIGION.        [Sect.  II. 

gcnoe,  the  absolute  explanation  of  everything ;"  ^  or,  in  the 
language  of  Sir  William  Hamilton,  "  it  boldly  places  itself 
at  the  very  centre  of  absolute  being,  with  which  it  is  in  fact 
identified,  and,  thence  surveying  existence  in  itself  and  in  its 
relations,  unveils  to  us  the  nature  of  the  Deity,  and  explains 
from  first  to  last  the  derivation  of  all  created  things."? 

The  philosophy  of  Experience  is  guilty  of  no  such  extrav- 
agances. Professing  to  build  on  observation,  its  first  and 
fundamental  principle  is  that  all  knoM'ledge  must  be  rela- 
tive in  its  nature  and  phenomenal  in  its  objects.  As  specu- 
lations about  abstract  being  transcend  the  province  of  legiti- 
mate induction,  it  dismisses  them  at  once  as  frivolous  and 
absurd,  and  aspires  to  know  only  those  qualities  and  attri- 
butes of  things  through  which  they  become  related  to  our 
minds.  What  they  are  in  themselves,  or  what  they  are  to 
the  omniscience  of  God,  it  would  regard  as  a  no  less  pre- 
posterous inquiry  than  to  undertake  to  determine  the  size, 
number  and  employments  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  moon. 
Still,  phenomena  in  its  vocabulary  are  not  synonymous,  as 
Rationalists  constantly  assume,  with  phantoms  or  delusions. 
They  are  realities,  the  conditions  of  the  objects  correspond- 
ing to  the  conditions  of  the  subjects  of  human  knowledge, 
and  consequently  as  truly  real  as  those  necessary  principles 
of  reason  for  the  sake  of  which  they  are  despised.  "  What 
appears  to  all,"  says  Aristotle,  "  that  we  affirm  to  be,  and  he 
who  would  subvert  this  belief  will  himself  assuredly  advance 
nothing  more  deserving  of  credit."^ 

Claiming,  therefore,  only  a  relative  knowledge  of  exist- 
ence, the  philosophy  of  Experience,  instead  of  futile  and 
abortive  attempts  to  construct  the  universe,  takes  its  stand, 
in  conformity  with  the  sublime  maxim  of  Bacon,^  as  the 

^  Introduct.  Hist.  Phil.,  Lect.  i.,  p.  24,  Linberg's  Trans. 

2  Edinburgh  Review,  Cross's  Selections,  vol.  iii.,  p.  176.  A  masterly 
article  on  Cousin's  Philosophy. 

^  Eth.  Nic.,  Lib.  x..  Cap.  2 ;  a  passage  repeatedly  quoted  by  Sir  "Wil- 
liam Hamilton. 

*  Nov.  Organ.,  Aphor.  i.  In  this  age  of  transcendental  speculation  the 
words  deserve  to  be  repeated:  Homo  naturae  minister  et  interpres,  tantum 


Sect.  II.]        EELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.     85 

minister,  not  the  master — the  interpreter,  not  the  legislator, 
of  Nature.  Professing  its  incompetence  to  pronounce  before- 
hand what  kinds  of  creatures  the  Almighty  should  have 
made,  and  "what  kinds  of  laws  the  Almighty  should  have 
established,  it  is  content  to  look  out  upon  the  world,  and 
to  look  in  upon  itself,  in  order  to  discover  what  God  has 
wrought.  Without  presuming  to  determine  what  must  be, 
it  humbly  and  patiently  inquires  what  is.  From  the  very 
nature  of  the  case  it  pretends  to  no  science  of  the  Deity.  To 
bring  Him  within  the  circle  of  science  would  be  to  degrade 
Him,  to  make  Him  a  general  law  or  a  constituent  element 
of  other  existences,  instead  of  the  Eternal  and  Self-exist- 
ent God. 

The  two  schools  of  Rationalism  and  Experience  are, 
accordingly,  at  war  in  regard  to  the  scope  and  province  of 
philosophy.  Agreeing  in  their  general  views  as  to  the  indis- 
pensable conditions  of  intelligence,  they  diifer  fundament- 
ally in  the  answers  which  they  return  to  the  question. 
What  can  man  knoAv  ?  This  single  consideration  is  enough 
to  show  the  futility,  or  at  least  the  delusiveness,  of  a  classi- 
fication like  that  adopted  by  Mr.  Morell  in  his  former 
work,  which  brings  Stewart,  Reid  and  Brown  under  the 
same  general  category  with  Fi elite,  Schelling  and  Hegel. 
The  problems  which  the  former  undertook  to  solve  were 
the  poles  apart  from  those  discussed  by  the  latter.  The 
former  were  inductive  psychologists,  apj)lying  the  same 
method  to  the  phenomena  of  mind  which  Newton  had 
applied  with  such  splendid  results  to  the  phenomena  of 
matter;  the  latter  were  bold  and  rampant  ontologists, 
unfolding  the  grounds  of  universal  Being  from  the  princi- 
ples of  pure  reason.  The  former  restricted  their  inquiries 
to  the  phenomenal  and  relative,  the  latter  pushed  into  the 
region  of  the  absolute  and  infinite ;  the  former  stopped  at 
properties  and  attributes,  the  latter  plunged  into  the  essence 
of  all   things.      From    Locke  to    Hamilton,   English    and 

facit  et  intelligit  quantum  de  naturte  ordine  re  vel  mente  observaverit,  nee 
amplius  scit  aut  potest. 


86  STANDAED    A>'D    NATURE    OF    RELIGION.        [SECT.  II. 

Scotch  philosophy  has  been  for  the  most  part  a  confession 
of  human  ignorance;  from  Leibnitz  to  Hegel,  German 
philosophy  has  been  for  the  most  part  an  aspiration  to 
omniscience.^ 

After  these  preliminary  remarks,  we  can  have  no  diffi- 
culty as  to  the  general  position  to  which  we  must  assign 
Mr.  Morell.  He  is  a  Kationalist,  coming  nearer,  so  far  as 
we  -can  collect  his  opinions,  to  the  Eclecticism  of  France 
than  to  any  other  school.  His  method,  the  psychological,^ 
is  evidently  that  of  Cousin,  and  there  is  the  same  unsuc- 
cessful attempt  to  combine  the  philosophy  of  Experience 
with  that  of  Rationalism. 

1.  The  treatise  before  us  opens  with  an  inquiry  into  that 
which  constitutes  the  essence  of  the  mind. 

"Now,  first,"  says  our  author,^  "whenever  we  speak  of  the  mind, 
or  use  the  expression,  ^myself,''  what  is  it,  we  would  ask,  that  we 
really  intend  to  designate  ?  What  is  it  in  which  the  mind  of  man 
essentially  consists?" 

The  terms  in  which  the  question  is  propounded  would 
seem  to  indicate  that  Mr.  Morell  regards  personality  and 
mind  as  synonymous  expressions,  the  Ego  as  embracing 
the  whole  subject  of  all  the  phenomena  of  consciousness. 
And  yet  in  another  passage  he  obviously  divorces  intelli- 
gence from  "self,^'  and  restricts  the  jjerson  to  individual 
peculiarities. 

"Neither,  lastlj',"  says  he,*  "can  the  real  man  be  the  complex  of 
our  thoughts,  ideas  or  conceptions.  These  indicate  simply  the  exist- 
ence of  logical  forms,  intellectual  laws  or  perceptive  faculties,  which 
are  essentially  the  same  in  all  minds ;  they  do  not  express  the  real, 
concrete,  individual  man ;    they  do  not  involve  the  element  which 

1  Kantdeservestobespeclallyexcejitedfromthiscensure.  The  "ontology 
of  piu-e  reason"  he  has  remoi-selessly  demolished  m  his  celebrated  Critique. 
See  also  Morell's  History  of  Modern  Philosophy,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  81,  82. 

-  Fraginens  Philosophiques,  Pref.  A  translation  of  tliis  Preface  may 
be  found  in  the  first  volume  of  Eipley's  Specimens  of  Foreign  Standard 
Literature:  Boston.  1838.  See  also  Morell's  Hist.  Mod.  Phil.,  vol.  ii. 
p.  484,  2d  London  Edit. 

3  Page  2.  *  Page  2. 


Sect.  IL]       RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.     87 

makes  each  human  being  enth-ely  distinct  from  the  whole  mass  of 
humanity  around  him ;  in  a  word,  they  do  not  constitute  oiu-  jyerson- 
alitijr 

To  us,  we  frankly  confess,  it  is  amazing  that  the  essence 
of  mind  as  mind  should  consist  in  something  that  is  not 
common  to  all  minds.  But  the  difficulty  does  not  stop 
here.  The  will,  in  which  ]Mr.  Morell  fixes  the  essence  of 
the  man  as  a  mere  iwwer  of  spontaneous  action,  is  just  as 
universal  and  just  as  uniform  as  the  operations  of  intel- 
ligence. It,  therefore,  "as  the  capacity  of  acting  independ- 
ently and  for  ourselves,"  cannot  be  the  essential  principle 
of  mind,  and  we  are  absolutely  shut  ijp  by  this  species  of 
logic  to  the  idiosyncracies  and  oddities  of  individuals.  It 
is  strange  that  Mr.  Morell,  in  adopting  the  analysis  of 
Maine  de  Biran,  has  not  admitted  the  limitations  of  Cousin, 
who,  it  seems  to  us,  has  unanswerably  proved  that,  upon 
this  hypothesis,  we  must  deny  the  personality  of  reason,  at 
least  in  its  spontaneous  manifestations,  and  make  "self 
and  mind  expressions  of  different  but  related  realities.  If 
the  Ego  is  the  will,  then  intelligence  is  no  more  of  it  than 
the  organs  of  sense.  "Eeason,"  says  Cousin,^  adhering 
rigidly  to  his  conception  of  personality  as  involving  only 
the  individual  and  voluntary,  to  the  entire  exclusion  of  the 
universal  and  absolute — "  reason  is  not  a  property  of  individ- 
uals; therefore  it  is  not  our  own,  it  does  not  belong  to  us, 
it  is  not  human ;  for,  once  more,  that  which  constitutes  man, 
his  intrinsic  personality,  is  his  voluntary  and  free  activity ; 
all  which  is  not  voluntary  and  free  is  added  to  man,  but  is 
not  an  integrant  part  of  man."  This  is  consistent.  But 
what  shall  we  say,  upon  this  hypothesis,  of  the  veracity  of 
consciousness,  the  fundamental  postulate  of  all  philosophy, 
which  just  as  clearly  testifies  that  the  operations  of  reason 
are  subjective — that  they  are,  in  other  words,  affections  of 
what  we  call  ourselves — as  that  the  decisions  of  the  will  are 
our  own?  The  distinction  betwixt  reason,  in  its  sponta- 
1  Introduct.  Hist.  Phil.  Lect.  v.,  Linberg's  Trans,  p.  127 ;  Lecture  vi., 


88  STANDARD   AND    NATURE    OF    RELIGION.        [SECT.  II. 

neous  and  reflective  manifestations,  does  not  touch  the  point. 
The  "  spontaneous  apperception  of  truth,"  ^  which  Cousin 
boasts  to  have  discovered  "within  the  penetralia  of  con- 
sciousness, at  a  depth  to  which  Kant  never  penetrated,"  is 
either  a  subjective  act,  and  then  it  is  personal,  or  it  is  only 
another  name  for  the  intellectual  intuition  of  Schelling,  in 
M^iich  the  distinction  of  subject  and  object  disappears,  and 
we  have  the  miracle  of  knowledge  without  anything  known 
or  any  one  to  know.  If  M.  Cousin  admits  that  his  spon- 
taneous apperception  of  truth  involves  a  percipient,  relative- 
ness  and  subjectivity  are  not  only  apparent,  but  as  real  as  they 
are  in  reflection ;  if  it  does  not  involve  a  percipient,  then 
we  humbly  submit  that  it  is  self-contradictory,  and  there- 
fore equivalent  to  zero.  A  theory  which  defends  the  im- 
personality of  reason  by  an  assumption  which  denies  the 
very  possibility  of  thought  may  be  safely  remanded  to  the 
depths  from  which  its  author  extracted  it,  and  into  which 
it  is  not  at  all  astonishing  that  such  a  thinker  as  Kant 
never  penetrated.  We  cannot  but  add  that  as  Cousin's 
ontology  is  founded  on  the  authority  of  reason,  and  the 
authority  of  reason  founded  on  its  impersonality,  and  its 
impersonality  founded  on  the  annihilation  of  thought,  his 
speculations  upon  this  subject  end  exactly  where  those  of 
Hegel  begin — at  nothing. 

Mr.  Morell,  however,  rigidly  cleaves  to  Maine  de  Biran, 
and  saves  the  personal  character  of  reason  by  the  extraordinary 
hypothesis — the  most  extraordinary  which,  we  venture  to 
say,  has  ever  been  proposed  in  the  history  of  philosophy — 
that  will,  spontaneity  or  personality  (for  they  are  all,  in 
his  vocabulary,  synonymous  expressions)  is  the  substance 
of  mind — that  our  various  faculties  of  intelligence  sustain 
the  same  relations  to  the  will,  which,  according  to  popular 
apprehension,  an  attribute  sustains  to  that  of  which  it  is  a 

1  Fragmens  Philosophiqnes,  Pref.  Morell  Hist.  Mod.  Phil.  vol.  ii.  p.  495. 
We  take  occasion  to  say  that  this  account  of  Cousin's  Psychology  is  one 
of  the  clearest  statements  of  his  system  that  we  have  ever  seen,  apart 
from  his  own  writings. 


Sect.  II.]       RELIGION   PSYCHOLOGICALLY   CONSIDERED.    89 

property.  That  unknown  substratum  which,  under  the 
appellations  of  mind,  soul  or  spirit,  other  philosophers  had 
been  accustomed  to  represent  as  the  subject  in  which  all 
our  mental  capacities  and  energies  inhere,  Mr.  Morell  pro- 
fesses to  have  drawn  from  its  concealment,  and  to  have 
identified  with  spontaneous  activity,  or  the  power  of  acting 
independently  and  for  ourselves.  Reason  or  intelligence, 
accordingly,  is  a  property  of  the  will,  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  extension  is  a  property  of  matter.  All  the  opera- 
tions of  the  mind  are  only  so  many  modifications  of  the 
will — so  many  manifestations  of  activity,  not  as  an  element 
which  they  include,  but  as  the  support  upon  which  they 
depend.  "If,  therefore,"  says  he,^  in  a  passage  which 
shows  that  we  have  not  misrepresented  him — "  if,  therefore, 
in  our  subsequent  classification  of  the  faculties  of  the  mind, 
little  appears  to  be  said  about  the  will,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  we  assume  the  activity  it  denotes  as  the  essential 
basis  of  our  whole  mental  being,  and  suppose  it  conse- 
quently to  underlie  [the  italics  are  his  own,  and  show  that 
he  means,  it  is  the  substance  of]  all  our  mental  operations." 
And  again :  ^  "  Remembering,  then,  that  the  power  of  the 
will  runs  through  the  whole,  we  may  regard  these  two 
classes  [the  intellectual  and  emotional]  as  exhausting  the 
entire  sum  of  our  mental  phenomena,"     And  again  : 

"We  would  also  again  remind  them  that  the  activity  of  the  will 
must  be  regarded  as  running  through  all  these  different  phenomena ; 
and  that  as  there  is  involved  in  the  spontaneous  operations  of  the 
human  mind  all  the  elements  vphicli  the  consciousness  at  all  contains, 
it  must  not  be  imagined  that  these  elements  have  to  be  reflectively 
realized  before  they  can  contribute  their  aid  to  our  mental  develop- 
ment. It  is,  in  fact,  one  of  the  most  delicate  and  yet  important  of 
all  psychological  analyses  to  show  how  the  power  of  the  will  operates 
through  all  the  region  of  man's  spontaneous  life,  and  to  ])rove  that 
our  activity  is  equally  voluntary  and  equally  moral  in  its  whole  aspect, 
although  the  understanding  may  not  have  brought  the  ]3rinciples  on 
which  we  act  into  the  clear  light  of  reflective  truth. ' '  * 

"To  talk  of  knowing  mind,"  he  affirms  in  his  former 
1  Pages  3,  4.  *  Page  4.  »  Pages  25,  26. 


90  STANDARD    AND    NATURE   OF   RELIGION.       [Sect.  II. 

work/  "  beyond  the  direct  consciousness  of  its  spontaneous 
being  and  all  the  affections  it  can  undergo,  is  absurd ;  there 
is  nothing  more  to  know."  By  spontaneous  being  he  evi- 
dently means  the  existence  of  mind  as  a  spontaneity.  Be- 
yond this  and  the  various  properties  it  exhibits  there  Ls 
nothing  to  be  known ;  in  spontaneity  we  have  the  substance, 
in  the  "  affections  it  can  undergo  "  the  attributes ;  and  these, 
in  their  connection,  exhaust  the  subject. 

If,  now,  spontaneous  activity  is  the  substance  of  the  soul, 
and  intelligence  and  reason,  with  all  our  various  capa- 
cities and  powers,  are  only  properties  or  modifications  of 
this  spontaneous  activity,  it  necessarily  follows  that  all 
thought  and  belief,  all  knowledge  and  emotion,  are  purely 
voluntary.  When  we  cognize  an  external  object  imme- 
diately present  in  consciousness,  or  assent  to  any  universal 
or  necessary  truth,  such  as  that  the  whole  is  greater  than  a 
part,  we  do  it  by  an  act  of  the  will.  The  cognition  is 
spontaneous ;  which  means,  if  it  mean  anything,  that  the 
mind  is  not  irresistibly  determined  to  it;  and  that,  con- 
sequently, it  might  refuse  to  know  when  the  object  is  act- 
ually present  before  it,  and  refuse  to  believe  when  the  terms 
of  the  proposition  are  distinctly  and  adequately  apprehended; 
which,  being  interpreted,  is  that  a  man  may  refuse  to  see 
when  he  sees,  and  refuse  to  believe  when  he  knows.  This 
very  circumstance  of  the  independence  of  truth,  especially 
of  necessary  and  absolute  truth,  of  the  human  will,  is  one 
of  the  principal  arguments  of  Cousin  to  establish  the  im- 
personality of  reason.  We  cannot  help  believing  when  the 
evidence  of  truth  is  clearly  before  us,  says  Cousin;  we  be- 
lieve in  every  case  only  because  we  loill  to  believe,  says 
Morell.     Doctors  diifer. 

But  passing  over  this  difficulty,  and  admitting  the  doc- 
trine, hard  as  it  is  to  reconcile  with  the  obvious  testimony 
of  consciousness,  that  all  knowledge  and  belief  are  the 
creatures  of  the  will,  the  products  of  sj)ontaneous  activity, 
we  find  ourselves  unable  to  detect  in  this  activity  the  only 
^  Vol.  ii.,  p.  53,  2d  London  Edition. 


Sect.  II.]        RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.     91 

criterion  by  which  our  faculties  are  capable  of  distinguish- 
ing substance  from  attributes.  "That  which  is  in  itself 
and  conceived  by  itself,"  is  the  compendious  definition  of 
substance  given  by  Spinoza/  and  though  it  expresses  what 
every  human  intellect  must  pronounce  to  be  impossible, 
and  contains  the  elements  of  proof  that  our  only  notion  of 
substance  is  a  certain  relation  to  attributes  —  in  other 
words,  a  postulation  of  the  mind  which  we  are  forced  to 
make,  by  the  very  constitution  of  our  nature,  in  order  to 
explain  the  existence  of  what  is  felt  to  be  dependent — ^yet, 
as  Mr.  Morell  admits  it,^  we  will  apply  its  canon  to  the 
case  before  us.  Everything,  then,  is  an  attribute  which 
cannot  be  recognized  as  self-subsistent  and  independent,  and 
everything  is  a  substance  which  can  be  construed  to  the 
mind  as  self-subsistent — self-subsistent  in  the  sense  that  it 
inheres  in  nothing  as  an  attribute  in  it.  Hence,  whatever 
is  conceived  by  the  mind  as  having  only  a  dependent  and 
relative  existence,  or  is  not  conceivable  as  having  a  separate 
and  independent  existence,  must  be  an  attribute;  it  cannot 
be  a  substance.  Apply  this  principle  to  the  case  before  us. 
Is  activity  dependent  or  independent?  In  other  words,  can 
we  conceive  of  it  abstracted  from  every  agent  and  every 
form  of  operation  ?  Does  it  not  just  as  much  require  a 
subject  as  intelligence  or  thought,  and  some  definite  mode 
of  manifestation?  Can  it  not  just  as  properly  be  asked, 
What  acts?  as  What  thinks  or  believes  ?  AVe  confess  that  we 
are  no  more  capable  of  representing  to  the  mind  absolute 
activity  than  of  representing  absolute  intelligence  or  abso- 
lute motion.  We  can  understand  the  proposition  that  the 
mind  is  active,  that  it  performs  such  and  such  operations, 
but  we  can  attach  no  glimmer  of  meaning  to  that  other 
proposition,  that  it  is  activity  itself.  Action  without  some- 
thing to  act  and  some  manner  of  action  is  to  us  as  pre- 
posterously absurd  as  knowledge  without  some  one  to  know ; 

^  Spinoza,  in  Howe's  Living  Temple,  Pt.  ii.,  chap,  i. 
*  This  is  evident  from  what  he  says  of  substance,  p.  37 ;  also  Hamilton's 
Reid,  p.  895,  note,  1st  col. 


92  STANDARD    AND    NATURE    OF    RELIGION.        [Sect.  IT, 

and  we  are  unable  to  enter  into  that  j^eculiar  mode  of  cogi- 
tation which  can  be  content  to  settle  down  on  activity  as 
the  substratum,  the  self-subsisting  subject,  of  all  intellectual 
phenomena.  That  the  mind  is  active  in  thought,  and  that 
activity  thinks,  are  propositions  the  poles  apart ;  that  activ- 
ity is  a  characteristic  and  all-pervading  quality  of  every 
species  of  mental  affection,  and  accordingly  the  highest 
generalization  of  mental  phenomena,  is  a  veiy  different 
statement  from  that  which  makes  it  the  mind  itself.  Hence, 
according  to  the  canon,  activity  is  only  an  attribute.  Mr. 
Morell,  in  fact,  admits  as  much. 

"We  do  not  say,  indeed,"  says  he,  "that  we  can  comprehend  the 
very  essence  of  the  soul  itself  apart  from  all  its  determinations ;  but 
that  by  deep  reflection  upon  our  inmost  consciousness  we  can  com- 
prehend the  essence  of  the  soul  in  connection  with  its  operations — 
that  we  can  trace  it  through  all  its  changes  as  a  poicer  or  pure  activ- 
ity, and  that  in  this  spontaneous  activity  alone  our  real  personality 
consists."^ 

But  it  is  essential  to  any  positive  idea  of  substance  that 
it  should  be  conceived  apart  from  attributes.  It  is  that 
"which  exists  in  itself  and  is  conceived  by  itself,  or 
whose  conception  needs  the  conception  of  nothing  else 
whereby  it  ought  to  be  formed."  In  saying,  therefore, 
that  activity  cannot  in  thought  be  abstracted  from  its 
manifestations,  Mr.  Morell  has  conceded  the  impossibility 
of  his  thesis,  and,  instead  of  making  it  the  substance,  he 
has  only  made  it  the  universal  characteristic,  of  mental 
operations. 

But  be  it  substance  or  accident,  we  venture  to  suggest  a 
doubt  whether  such  a  thing  as  spontaneous  activity,  in  the 
sense  of  Mr.  Morell,  does  not  involve  a  contradiction. 
According  to  this  hypothesis,  man  is  an  undetermined 
cause,  or  a  cause  determined  by  nothing  but  his  own  prop- 
er energy.  How  shall  we  account  for  the  first  act?  It 
either  produced  itself  or  it  came  into  being  by  chance,  for 
all  foreign  influences  are,  ex  hypothesi,  excluded :  to  have 
1  Page  3. 


Sect.  II.]       RELIGION   PSYCHOLOGICALLY   CONSIDERED.     93 

produced  itself  it  must  have  existed  as  a  cause  before  it 
existed  as  an  effect;  that  is,  it  must  have  existed  before  it 
existed,  which  is  self-contradictory.  To  say  that  it  was 
produced  by  chance  is  to  say  that  the  negation  of  all  cause 
is  the  affirmation  of  some  cause,  or  that  a  thing  can  be 
and  not  be  a  cause  in  the  same  relation  and  at  the  same 
time,  which  is  also  self-contradictory.  We  crave  from  Mr. 
Morell  and  his  admirei's  a  solution  of  these  difficulties. 
We  are  utterly  unable  to  absolve  the  doctrine  of  spontaneous 
activity  from  the  charge  of  implying  the  doctrine  of  an 
absolute  commencement,  and  an  absolute  commencement 
we  are  as  incapable  of  conceiving  •as  a  triangle  of  four 
sides.  If  Mr.  Morell  takes  man  "  out  of  the  mighty  chain 
of  cause  and  effect,  by  which  all  the  operations  of  nature 
are  carried  on  from  the  commencement  to  the  end  of  time," 
and  makes  him  a  separate  and  independent  cause,  receiving 
no  causal  influence  from  without,  we  should  like  to  know 
how  he  makes  a  beginning  ?  For  to  us  it  is  as  plain  that 
all  commencement  must  be  relative  as  that  there  is  any 
such  thing  as  a  commencement  at  all.  If  an  absolute  com- 
mencement were  possible,  Atheism  could  not  be  convicted 
of  absurdity;  and  we  see  not  how  they  can  consistently 
apply  the  principle  of  causation  to  the  proof  of  theism — 
how  they  can  deny  that  all  things  might  have  spontaneously 
sprung  from  nothing,  when  they  distinctly  affirm  that  our 
mental  acts  generate  themselves.  Upon  this  subject  there 
are  obviously  only  three  suppositions  that  can  be  made — 
that  of  the  Casualist,  who  asserts  an  absolute  commencement ; 
that  of  the  Fatalist,  who  asserts  an  infinite  series  of  relative 
commencements ;  that  of  the  Theist,  who  asserts  a  finite 
series  of  relative  commencements,  carried  up  in  the  ascend- 
ing scale  to  a  necessary  Being,  at  once  Creator  and  Pre- 
server, the  seat  of  all  causation,  who  is  without  beginning 
of  days  or  end  of  life.  The  extremes  of  Fatalism  and 
Casualism  are  not  only  inconceivable — for  we  readily  grant 
that  the  power  of  thought  is  not  the  measure  of  existence — 
but  they  are  palpably  and  grossly  self-contradictory,  and 


94  STANDARD    AND    NATURE    OF    RELIGION.        [Sect.  II. 

therefore  must  be  false.  The  hypothesis  of  tlie  Theist  is 
also  inconceivable.  We  cannot  represent  in  thought  a 
necessary  and  eternal  Being ;  but,  then,  it  is  not  self-con- 
tradictory, and  upon  the  doctrine  of  excluded  middle  it 
must  be  true ;  so  man  must  take  his  place  in  the  "  mighty 
chain  of  cause  and  effect,  by  which  all  the  operations  of 
nature  are  carried  on  from  the  commencement  to  the  end 
of  time."  In  the  calumniated  doctrine  of  an  universal 
Providence,  extending  to  all  events  and  to  all  things,  the 
only  depositary  of  real  efficiency  and  power,  we  find  the 
true  explanation  of  an  activity  which  is  neither  casual  in 
its  origin  nor  a  dependent  link  in  an  endless  chain.^  In 
God  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being.  Nature  and 
our  own  minds  present  us  with  multifarious  phenomena 
linked  together  as  antecedent  and  consequent,  but  all  are 
equally  effects.  jSTeither  nature  nor  ourselves  present  us 
with  an  instance  of  a  real  cause.  To  Him  that  sitteth  on 
the  throne,  and  to  Him  alone,  in  its  just  and  proper  sense, 
belongs  the  prerogative  of  power.  He  speaks  and  it  is 
done.     He  commands  and  it  stands  fast. 

The  proof  by  which  Mr.  Morell  establishes  his  proposi- 
tion that  spontaneous  activity  is  the  substance  of  the  soul 
is  as  remarkable  as  the  proposition  itself.  His  argument 
is  what  logicians  call  a  destructive  conditional,  to  the  va- 
lidity of  which  it  is  as  requisite  that  all  the  suppositions 
which  can  possibly  be  made  in  the  case  should  be  given 
in  the  major,  as  that  all  but  the  one  contained  in  the  con- 
clusion should  be  destroyed  in  the  minor — the  very  spe- 
cies of  argument  which  we  ourselves  have  employed  in 
regard  to  the  existence  of  a  necessary  Being.  Now,  sayr, 
Mr.  Morell,  the  essence  of  mind  must  consist  either  in  sen- 
sation, intelligence  or  will.  It  does  not  consist  in  sensa- 
tion or  intelligence;  therefore  it  must  consist  in  the  will. 
Very  plausible,  no  doubt.     But  how,  we  ask,  does  it  ap- 

1  Hence  we  dissent  totally  from  the  doctrine  laid  down  by  Sir.  "Wm. 
Hamilton,  that  there  is  no  medium  between  fatalism  and  chance.  Hamil- 
ton's Keid,  p.  602  :  Note. 


Sect.  II.]        RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.     95 

pear,  that  it  must  consist  in  one  of  the  enumerated  ele- 
ments? Why  may  it  not  consist  in  something  else,  in  that 
unknown  substance  denominated  spirit — unknown,  but  yet 
believed  by  virtue  of  the  very  constitution  of  our  nature  ? 
This  supposition  is,  at  least,  one  which  may  be  made  in  the 
case,  wliicli  has  been  made  by  philosophers  of  the  highest 
repute,  and  which,  we  venture  to  predict,  will  continue  to 
be  made  by  the  great  mass  of  mankind  so  long  as  the 
world  shall  stand.  Then,  again,  in  his  process  of  destruc- 
tion he  removes  a  great  deal  more  than  he  intends.  He 
removes  whatever  "  is  essentially  the  same  in  all  minds," 
and  of  course  the  will  considered  as  a  mere  "  spontaneity 
or  capacity  of  acting  independently  and  for  ourselves,"  for 
in  this  sense  it  is  unquestionably  common  to  all  mankind. 
Its  modes  of  manifestation  are  various  in  different  indi- 
viduals, and  in  the  same  individual  at  different  times ;  but 
as  a  faculty  or  a  power  abstracted  from  its  effects  "it  is 
essentially  the  same  in  all  minds." 

We  have  insisted,  at  what  may  seem  a  disproportionate 
length,  upon  this  preliminary  feature  of  Mr.  Morell's  psy- 
chology, because  we  believe  that  it  contains  the  seeds  of 
incalculable  mischief.  The  serious  proposal  of  the  ques- 
tion concerning  the  substance  of  the  soul,  as  one  that  our 
faculties  can  answer,  involves  a  complete  apostasy  from 
the  fundamental  principle  of  the  Experimental  school. 
The  great  masters  of  that  philosophy  would  as  soon  have 
thought  of  gravely  discussing  the  relations  of  angels  to 
space,  how  they  can  be  here  and  not  there,  or  there  and  not 
here,  and  yet  be  incorporeal  and  unextended  beings.  Des 
Cartes,  indeed,  speaks  of  the  essence  of  the  soul,  and  places 
it  in  thought,  as  he  had  placed  the  essence  of  matter  in 
extension.  But  he  uses  essence,  not  as  synonymous  with 
substance — for  he  expressly  distinguishes  them — but  for 
the  characteristic  and  discriminating  quality. 

If  there  be  any  principle  which  we  regard  as  settled,  it 
is  that  all  human  knowledge  must  be  phenomenal  and 
relative;   and  that  science  transcends   its  sphere  when  it 


96  STANDARD   AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.       [Sect.  II. 

seeks  to  penetrate  into  the  region  of  substances  or  into  that 
of  efficient  causes — two  things  which,  we  shall  afterward 
have  occasion  to  observe,  Rationalists  are  perpetually  con- 
founding. We  will  not  quote  in  confirmation  of  our  own, 
the  opinions  of  philosophers  imperfectly  or  not  at  all 
acquainted  with  the  modern  speculations  of  Continental 
Europe.  We  choose  rather  to  refer  to  one  who  is  master 
of  them  all;  who  in  depth  and  acuteness  is  a  rival  to 
Aristotle,  in  immensity  of  learning  a  match  for  Leibnitz, 
and  in  comprehensiveness  of  thought  an  equal  to  Bacon. 
We  allude  to  Sir  William  Hamilton.  His  work  on  Reid 
has  filled  us  with  amazement  at  the  prodigious  extent  and 
critical  accuracy  of  his  reading.  The  whole  circle  of  the 
ancient  classics,  poets,  philosophers  and  orators ;  the  entire 
compass  of  Christian  literature,  Eastern  and  Western,  from 
Justin  to  Luther,  including  the  angry  controversies  and  the 
endless  disputes  of  the  Fathers  and  Schoolmen ;  the  great 
works  of  the  Reformation,  and  the  prolific  productions  of 
England,  Scotland,  Germany  and  France  from  the  period 
of  the  Reformers  until  now, — all  seem  to  be  as  familiar  to 
his  mind  as  the  alphabet  to  other  men ;  and,  what  is  more 
remarkable,  this  ponderous  mass  of  learning  is  no  incum- 
brance: he  has  not  swallowed  down  only,  but  digested, 
libraries,  and  while  he  carries — it  is  hardly  extravagant  to 
gay — all  the  thoughts  of  all  other  men  in  his  head,  he  has 
an  immense  multitude  besides,  precious  as  any  he  has  col- 
lected, which  none  have  ever  had  before  him,  and  for  which 
the  world  will  always  hold  him  in  grateful  remembrance. 
He  is  an  honour  to  Scotland  and  an  ornament  to  letters. 
Upon  this  subject  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  human  know- 
ledge and  the  legitimate  province  of  philosophy,  we  are 
rejoiced  to  find  that  he  treads  in  the  footsteps  of  his  illus- 
trious predecessors  of  the  same  school.  He  fully  recognizes 
the  distinction  betwixt  laith  and  science. 

"  All  we  know,"  says  he,*  "either  of  mind  or  matter,  is  only  a  know- 
1  Edinburgh  Eeview,  Cross's  Selections,  p.  181.    A  splendid  article  on 
Cousin's  Philosophy. 


Sect.  II.]       RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY   CONSIDERED.     97 

ledge  in  each,  of  the  particular,  of  the  diiferent,  of  the  modified, 
of  the  phenomenal.  We  admit  that  the  consequence  of  this  doc- 
trine is,  that  phi]o8oph.y,  if  viewed  as  more  than  a  science  of  the 
conditioned,  is  impossible.  Departing  from  the  particular,  we  can 
never  in  our  highest  generalizations  rise  above  the  finite ;  that  our 
knowledge,  whether  of  mind  or  matter,  can  be  nothing  more  than 
a  knowledge  of  the  relative  manifestations  of  an  existence  which, 
in  itself,  it  is  our  highest  wisdom  to  recognize  as  beyond  the  reach  of 
philosophy. ' ' 

"We  know — we  can  know,"  he  observes  again,'  "  only  what  is 
relative.  Our  knowledge  of  qualities  or  phenomena  is  necessarily 
relative  ;  for  these  exist  only  as  they  exist  in  relation  to  our  faculties. 
The  knowledge,  or  even  the  conception  of  a  substance,  in  itself  and 
apart  from  any  qualities  in  relation  to,  and  therefoi-e  cognizable  or 
conceivahle  by,  our  minds,  involves  a  contradiction.  Of  such  we  can 
form  only  a  negative  notion  ;  that  is,  we  can  mereXy  conceive  it  as  in- 
conceivable.''' And  again, ^  "We  know  nothing  whatever  of  mind 
and  matter,  considered  as  substances ;  they  are  only  known  to  us  as  a 
twofold  series  of  phenomena,  and  we  can  only  justify  against  the  law 
of  parcimony,  the  postulation  of  two  substances,  on  the  ground  that 
the  two  series  of  phenomena  are  reciprocally  so  contrary  and  incom- 
patible that  the  one  cannot  be  reduced  to  the  other,  nor  both  be  sup- 
posed to  combine  in  the  same  common  substance."  And  finally,^ 
"We  are  aware  of  a  phenomenon.  That  it  exists  only  as  known — 
only  as  a  phenomenon— only  as  an  absolute  relative — we  are  unable  to 
reahze  in  thought ;  and  there  is  necessarily  suggested  the  notion  of  an 
unimaginable  something,  in  which  the  phenomenon  inheres — a  subject 
or  substance. ' ' 

These  principles  are  so  intuitively  obvious  to  us  that  we 
find  it  difficult  to  sympathize  with  men  who  can  persuade 
themselves  that,  with  our  faculties,  they  can  ever  arrive  at 
any  other  conception  of  substance  but  as  the  unknown  and 
unknowable  support  of  properties.  It  is  not  a  matter  of 
knowledge,  but  of  belief;  it  is  not  an  object  which,  in  itself, 
is  ever-present  in  consciousness ;  it  is  veiled  from  human 
penetration  by  the  multitude  of  attributes  and  qualities 
which  intervene  betwixt  it  and  the  mind.  It  belongs  to 
the  dominion  of  fliith  and  not  of  science.     We  admit  its 

1  Hamilton's  Eeid,  p.  322. 

2  Hamilton's  Eeid.     Appendix.     Note  A,  ?  11,  p.  751.    /■ 
^  Ilaniilton's  Reid.     Appendix.     Note  D.** 

Vol.  III.— 7 


98  STAND AED    AND    NATURE    OF    RELIGION,        [Skct.  TL 

existence,  not  because  we  know  it,  but  because  we  are  un- 
able not  to  believe  it.  The  unfounded  conviction  that  by 
some  means  we  can  ascend  from  the  phenomenal  to  the  sub- 
stantial, that  we  can  apprehend  existence  in  itself,  that  we 
can  know  it  simply  as  Being,  without  qualities,  without 
properties,  without  any  relative  manifestations  of  its  reality, 
that  we  can  comprehend  it  in  its  naked  essence,  and  track 
the  progress  of  all  its  developments  from  its  abstract  esse 
to  its  countless  forms  throughout  the  universe,  has  given 
rise  to  all  the  abortive  attempts  of  German  and  French 
speculation  to  fix  the  absolute  as  a  positive  element  in  know- 
ledge. These  speculations  are  not  the  visions  of  crack- 
brained  enthusiasts.  The  reader  who  has  judged  of  the 
German  philosophers  from  the  extravagant  conclusions  they 
have  reached  will  find,  upon  opening  their  works  and 
mastering  their  uncouth  and  barbarous  dialects,  and,  what 
is  often  more  difficult,  their  abstract  and  rugged  formulas, 
that  he  is  brought  in  contact  with  men  of  the  highest  order 
of  mind,  the  severest  powers  of  logic  and  the  utmost  cool- 
ness of  judgment.  They  do  not  rave,  but  reason.  They 
do  not  dream,  but  think;  and  that,  too,  with  a  rigour  of 
abstraction,  an  intensity  of  attention,  and  a  nicety  of  dis- 
crimination, which  he  is  obliged  to  respect  M'hile  he  laments 
the  perverseness  of  their  application.  The  difficulty  with 
them  is  that  they  begin  wrong.  Refusing  to  recognize  the 
limits  which  the  constitution  of  our  nature  and  our  obvious 
relations  to  existence  have  imposed  upon  the  excursions  of 
our  faculties,  and  inattentive  to  the  great  law  of  our  being, 
that  in  this  sublunary  state  we  are  doomed  to  walk  by 
faith  much  more  than  by  sight,  they  undertake  to  bring 
within  the  circle  of  science  the  nature  and  foundation  of 
all  reality.  Reluctant  to  accept  any  constitutional  beliefs, 
they  seek  to  verify  the  deposition  of  our  faculties  by  gazing 
upon  the  things  themselves  with  the  intuition'of  God  and 
grasping  them  in  their  true  and  essential  existence.  Hence, 
their  endless  quest  of  the  absolute  as  the  unconditioned 
ground  of  being.     They  suppose  that,  if  they  can  once  com- 


Sect.  II.]       RELIGION    PSYCHOI-OGICALLY   CONSIDERED.     99 

prehend  in  its  inmost  essence  what  it  is  to  be,  they  have 
the  data  for  "the  absokite  intelligence  and  absolute  ex])la^ 
nation  of  all  things."  The  consequences,  too  well  known, 
which  inattention,  in  their  hands,  to  the  necessary  limits 
of  human  knowledge  has  legitimately  produced,  show  the 
supreme  importance  of  accurately  fixing  in  our  minds — to 
use  the  homely  language  of  Locke ^ — "how  far  the  under- 
standing can  extend  its  view,  how  far  it  has  faculties  to 
attain  certainty,  and  in  what  cases  it  can  only  judge 
and  guess."  The  salutary  lesson  of  human  ignorance  is 
the  last  to  which  human  pride  submits ;  but  a  sound  philos- 
ophy concurs  with  the  sure  word  of  inspiration  in  pro- 
nouncing man  to  be  a  creature  of  yesterday,  who  knows 
comparatively  nothing.  It  is  precisely  because  we  discover, 
in  the  preliminary  speculations  of  our  author,  this  tendency 
to  transcend  the  sphere  of  our  faculties,  which,  in  its  last 
manifestation — when  it  has  grasped  the  absolute — identifies 
man  with  God,  that  we  have  adverted  with  so  much  earnest- 
ness to  the  indispensable  conditions  of  knowledge.  In  the 
case  before  us  Mr.  Morell  has  evidently  made  nothing  of 
substance.  After  all  that  he  has  said  of  spontaneity,  will, 
power,  capacity  of  acting  independently  and  for  ourselves, 
the  real  nature  of  the  mind  is  as  inscrutable  as  it  was  be- 
fore; and  although  he  has  confidently  said  that  beyond 
what  he  has  disclosed  there  is  nothing  more  to  know,  the 
instinctive  belief  of  every  understanding  will  instantane- 
ously suggest  that  there  is  something  more  to  know. 

2.  His  classification  of  the  powers  of  the  mind  comes 
next  in  order.  He  divides  them  into  two  classes  or  orders — 
"those  relating  to  the  acquisition  of  knowledge  on  the  one 
side,  and  those  subserving  impulse  and  activity  on  the 
other."  The  former  he  terms  intellectual,  the  latter  emo- 
tional. "  Between  the  intellectual  and  emotional  activity," 
he  observes*,^  "there  always  subsists  a  direct  correspond- 
ency." The  successive  stages  of  human  consciousness,  in 
the  order  of  its  development  and  in  the  correspondence 
^  Essay  on  Human  Understanding,  Introduct.,  ^  4.  -'  Page  4. 


100         STANDARD   AND    NATURE   OF    RELIGION.        [Sect.  II. 

of  the  intellectual  and  emotional  activity,  he  presents  in 
the  following  tabular  view : 

MIND, 

COMMENCING  IN 

MERE  FEELING  (undeveloped  Unity), 

EVINCES  A 

TWOFOLD  ACTIVITY. 

'  L  n^^ 

Intellectual.  Emotional. 

1st  Stage.  The  Sensational 

Consciousness,  (to  which  coiTCspond)  Tlie  Instincts. 
2d  Stage.    The  Perceptive 

Consciousness,  "  Animal  Passions. 

3d  Stage.   The  Logical 

Consciousness,  "  Relational  Emotions. 

4th  Stage.  The  Intuitional 

Consciousness,  "  ^Esthetic,  Moral  and 

Religious  Emotions. 

MEETING  IN 


FAITH  (highest  or  developed  Unity ).^ 

If  it  is  the  design  of  this  table,  as  it  seems  to  be,  to  indi- 
cate all  our  means  of  knowledge,  it  is  certainly  chargeable 
with  an  unaccountable  defect.  There  is  no  faculty  which 
answers  to  the  Reflection  of  Locke  or  to  the  Consciousness 
of  Reid,  Stewart  and  Royer-Collard.  Mind  can  unques- 
tionably be  made  an  object  of  thought  to  itself,  and  its  own 
powers  and  operations,  its  emotions,  passions  and  desires, 
are  materials  of  knowledge  as  real  and  important  as  the 
phenomena  of  sense.  Mr.  Morell  has  told  us  how  we  be- 
come acquainted  with  our  material  organism,  with  external 
objects,  with  beauty,  goodness  and  God,  but  he  has  omitted 
to' tell  us  how  we  can  know  ourselves.  He  has  made  no 
allusion  to  that  "  internal  perception  or  self-consciousness" 
which,  according  to  Sir  William  Hamilton,^  whose  analysis, 
in  another  respect,  he  has  followed,  ''  is  the  faculty  presen 
tative  or  intuitive  of  the  phenomena  of  the  Ego  or  Mind." 
1  Page  5.  '  Hamilton's  Eeid.     Appendix  B.,  §  1,  P-  809. 


Sect.  II.]     RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.    101 

In  our  author's  substitution  of  the  circumlocutory  phrases, 
Sensational  Consciousness,  Pei-ceptive  Consciousness,  Log- 
ical Consciousness,  Intuitional  Consciousness,  for  the  more 
common  and  familiar  terms.  Sensation,  Perception,  Under- 
standing, and  Reason,  we  have  an  intimation  of  what  he 
distinctly  avows  in  his  former  work,^  that  he  agrees  with 
Sir  William  Hamilton  ^  that  Consciousness  is  not  to  be  con- 
sidered as  a  distinct  and  co-ordinate  faculty  of  the  mind, 
taking  cognizance  of  its  other  powers  and  operations  to  the 
exclusion  of  their  objects — the  opinion  of  Reid,  Stewart 
and  Royer-Collard — but  that  it  is  the  necessary  condition 
of  intelligence,  the  generic  and  fundamental  form  of  all 
intellectual  activity.  We  cannot,  in  other  words,  know 
without  knowing  that  we  know.  We  cannot  think,  will, 
feel  or  remember  without  knowing,  in  the  exercise  and  by 
the  exercise  of  these  faculties  or  powers,  that  we  are  the 
subjects  of  such  operations.  Hence,  although  it  is  strictly 
true  that  every  form  of  mental  activity  is  a  form  of  con- 
sciousness, yet  there  is  certainly,  as  Sir  William  Hamilton 
himself  admits,  a  logical  distinction  betwixt  a  faculty  m 
known  and  a  faculty  m  exerted;  and  this  logical  distinction 
ought  to  be  preserved  in  language.  It  has,  indeed,  been 
preserved  in  the  common  terminology,  which  assigns  to  the 
separate  faculties,  considered  in  themselves,  apj^ropriate 
appellations,  while  the  relation  of  each  and  all  to  our  know- 
ledge of  them  is  denoted  by  consciousness.  It  is  a  word 
which  precisely  expresses  the  formula,  toe  know  that  we  knoio, 
and,  when  employed  without  an  epithet  restricting  it  to 
some  specific  mode  of  cognition,  indicates  the  complement 
of  all  our  intellectual  faculties.  It  is,  therefore,  indispens- 
able to  any  adequate  enumeration  of  the  sources  of  human 
knowledge.  Those  who  regard  it  as  a  single  and  distinct 
power,  of  course,  cannot  omit  it,  and  those  who  regard  it 
as  the  universal  condition  of  intelligence  should  include  it, 
because  it  is  a  compendious  statement  of  all  the  faculties  in 

1  Hist.  Mod.  Phil,,  vol.  ii.,  p.  13,  seq. 

^  Cross's  Selections,  Edin.  Eeview,  vol.  iii.,  p.  197. 


102         STANDARD    AND    NATURE   OF    RELIGION.        [Sect.  II. 

detail,  and  in  that  precise  relation  which  the  classification 
contemplates.  In  tlie  table  before  us,  Mr.  Morell  gives  us 
Perception  as  known,  Sensation  as  known,  Understanding 
as  known,  Keason  as  knoicn,  and  various  departments  of 
Emotion  as  known,  but  he  does  not  give  us  ourselves, 
the  mind  in  its  integrity,  as  knoicn.  This  omission  is  the 
more  remarkable  as,  in  his  history  of  Modern  Philosophy, 
he  has  himself  suggested^  the  convenience  of  the  term,  self- 
consciousness,  "to  express  the  mind's  cognizance  of  its  own 
operations."  We  need  not  say  that  the  faculties  which  he 
has  enumerated  he  has  illustrated,  according  to  his  own 
views  of  their  connection  and  dependence,  in  a  very  graph- 
ic and  interesting  sketch  of  the  natural  history  of  the 
human  mind. 

3.  AVithout  detaining  the  reader  with  his  accounts  of 
Sensation  and  External  Perception,  in  which  he  has  pro- 
fessedly followed  Sir  William  Hamilton — and  upon  this 
subject  he  could  not  have  followed  a  better  or  a  safer  guide 
— we  come  to  that  part  of  his  psychology  which  bears  more 
immediately  upon  the  main  questions  of  his  treatise,  and 
in  which  error  or  mistake  is  likely  to  be  productive  of 
serious  consequences.  We  allude  to  his  doctrine  of  the 
Understanding  and  Reason. 

Understanding,  as  a  synonym  for  logical  consciousness, 
is,  so  far  as  we  know,  utterly  without  authority  in  our  phil- 
osophical literature;  for  we  do  not  regard  Coleridge  as 
authority  for  anything  but  literary  theft.  It  is  a  term  em- 
ployed in  a  wider  or  narrower  sense.  In  its  wider  sense 
it  embraces  all  the  powers  which  relate  to  the  acquisition 
of  knowledge,  in  contradistinction  from  those  which  are 
subservient  to  impulse  and  activity — it  answers,  in  other 
words,  precisely  to  the  division  which  Mr.  Morell  has 
styled  intellectual.  Hence  the  common  distribution  of  our 
fa(^ulties  into  those  of  the  understanding  and  those  of  the 
will.  In  its  narrower  and,  as  we  think,  its  proper  sense, 
it  denotes  those  higher  intellectual  faculties  which  pre- 
1  Vol.  ii.,  p.  15:  Note. 


Sect.  II.]      RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    C0\SIDERF:D.    103 

eminently  distinguish  man  from  the  brute,  to  the  exclusion 
of  sense,  imagination,  memory  and  fancy.  But  we  cannot 
recollect  a  single  instance  in  which  it  has  ever  been  re- 
stricted to  our  lower  cognitive  faculties  or  to  the  processes 
of  ratiocination.  The  change  which  Mr.  Morell  has  intro- 
duced, or  rather  followed  Coleridge  in  introducing,  is  a 
radical  departure  from  established  usage.  There  is  much 
more  authority  for  identifying  reason  with  the  logical  con- 
sciousness than  understanding.  For  although  that  word, 
in  its  prevailing  usage,  is  exactly  synonymous  with  under- 
standing, both  in  its  narrower  and  wider  sense,  yet  it  has 
not  unfrequently  been  employed  by  writers  of  the  highest 
repute  to  denote  precisely  the  Discursive  Faculty.  This  is 
the  first  meaning  which  Johnson  assigns  to  it,  and  the 
meaning  in  which  Reid  systematically  employs  it  in  his 
Inquiry  into  the  Human  Mind;  the  meaning  to  which 
Beattie  restricts  it  in  his  Essay  on  Truth,  and  which  Dr. 
Campbell  evidently  attached  to  it  when  he  denied  it  to  be 
the  source  of  our  moral  convictions.  We  would  not  be 
understood  as  objecting,  however,  to  Mr.  Morell's  employ- 
ment of  reason  as  synonymous  with,  common  sense,  or,  as 
he  prefers  to  style  it,  the  Intuitional  Consciousness  :  this 
is  justified  by  the  highest  authority.  Dugald  Stewart  long 
ago  suggested  "whether  it  would  not,  on  some  occasions,  be 
the  best  substitute  which  our  language  affords  for  intuition, 
in  the  enlarged  acceptation  in  which  it  had  been  made 
equivalent  to  the  ancient  uouc;  or  locus  pinncipiorum.'"  But 
what  we  deny  is,  that  understanding  is  ever  equivalent  to 
logical  consciousness  as  contradistinguished  from  reason  in 
its  restricted  application,  or  is  ever  opposed  to  it  in  any 
other  sense  than  a  genus  is  opposed  to  a  species.^  Intelligence 
is  one,  and  all  our  faculties,  when  legitimately  exercised,  are 
harmonious  and  consistent  with  each  other.  They  all  con- 
spire in  the  unity  of  knowledge.  It  is  not  one  reason  which 
knows  intuitively,  and  another  reason  which  knows  deduct- 

1  See  Stewart's  Elements,  vol.  ii.,  Prelim.  Cons.,  and  Hamilton's  Eeid, 
Appendix.     Note  A,  |  v.,  p.  768,  seq.     Also  p.  511 :  Note. 


104         STANDARD   AND   NATURE   OF    RELIGION.       [Sect.  II. 

ively ;  but  it  is  the  same  reason  which  knows  in  each  case, 
though  the  relations  of  the  object  to  it  are  different,  but  not 
repugnant  or  contradictory.  To  suppose  that  the  logical 
consciousness,  operating  in  conformity  with  the  laws  of 
thought,  shall  ever  be  exclusive  of  intuitive  results,  is  to 
suppose  that  philosophy  is  impossible,  and  that  skepticism 
is  the  highest  wisdom  of  man. 

The  unity  of  reason  and  the  harmony  of  intelligence 
being  kept  steadily  in  view,  we  have  no  objections  to  any 
form  of  phraseology  which  shall  exactly  designate  the  rela- 
tions in  which  the  objects  of  knowledge  are  contemplated 
by  the  mind.  There  is  certainly  a  distinction  between  those 
faculties  which  are  simply  receptive  and  those  which  operate 
upon  the  materials  received — those  which  furnish  us  with 
our  simple  and  elementary  ideas,  and  those  which  combine 
them  into  structures  of  science ;  and  if  this  is  the  distinc- 
tion which  Mr.  Morell  designed  to  signalize — if  he  means 
by  intuition  the  complement  of  all  our  faculties  of  present- 
ative,  and  by  logical  consciousness  the  complement  of  all 
our  faculties  of  representative,  knowledge — he  has  aimed  at 
the  expression  of  an  obvious  truth,  but,  we  must  take  the 
liberty  to  say,  has  been  extremely  unfortunate  in  the  mode 
of  its  development. 

He  has,  in  the  first  place,  confounded  presentative  and 
intuitive  knowledge.  These  knowledges  have  not  the  same 
logical  extension:  one  is  a  genus  of  which  the  other  is  a 
species.  All  presentative  is  intuitive,  but  all  intuitive  is 
not  presentative,  knowledge.  Intuition  may  be,  and  is,  con- 
stantly applied  not  only  to  the  immediate  view  which  the 
mind  has  of  an  object  in  an  act  of  presentative  cognition, 
but  to  the  irresistible  conviction  of  the  vicarious  character 
of  the  representative  in  an  act  of  representative  cognition, 
as  well  as  to  the  instantaneous  perception  of  the  agreement 
of  subject  and  predicate  in  self-evident  propositions.  To 
make  these  distinctions  more  obvious:  knowledge,  in  its 
strict  acceptation,  as  contradistinguished  from  faith,  is  con- 
versant only  about  realities  which  have  been  given  in  ex- 


Sect.  II.]      RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.    105 

perience,  and  is  either  mediate  or  immediate.  It  is  im- 
mediate, when  an  object  is  apprehended  in  itself  without 
relation  to  others;  mediate,  when  it  is  known  or  apprehen- 
ded in  and  through  its  relations.  Immediate  knowledge  is, 
again,  subdivided  into  presentative  and  representative — 
presentative,  when  the  object  itself,  and  not  an  image,  con- 
ception or  notion  of  it,  is  that  which  is  present  in  conscious- 
ness; representative,  when  it  is  not  the  object,  but  an  image, 
notion  or  conception  of  it,  which  is  present  in  consciousness. 
Hence,  although  all  presentative  knowledge  is  immediate, 
all  immediate  is  not  presentative  knowledge;  and  although 
all  mediate  knowledge  is  representative,  all  representative 
is  not  mediate  knowledge;  and  both  presentative  and  rep- 
resentative knowledge  may  be  intuitive.  External  per- 
ception is  an  instance  of  presentative  and  intuitive,  memory, 
of  reiDresentative  and  intuitive,  knowledge.  In  the  one 
case,  the  external  object  is  known  in  itself,  being  actually 
present  in  consciousness;  in  the  other,  the  past,  which,  ex 
hypothesi,  cannot  be  present,  is  apprehended  through  a 
modification  of  the  mind  representing  it.  But  the  know- 
ledge of  memory  is  as  strictly  self-evident — as  strictly  in- 
dependent of  proofs — though  it  may  not  be  as  perfect  in 
degree,  as  the  knowledge  in  external  perception.  If,  now, 
the  logical  consciousness  embraces  all  our  faculties  of  pre- 
sentative, and  the  intuitional  all  our  faculties  of  represent- 
ative, knowledge,  intuition  certainly  may  be  common  to 
both.  It  does  not  follow  that,  because  an  object  is  intui- 
tively known,  it  is  therefore  directly  and  immediately  given 
in  consciousness. 

His  confusion  of  Intuition  and  Presentation  has  led  him, 
in  the  next  place,  into  a  still  more  remarkable  error — the 
confusion  of  mediate  and  indirect  knowledge  with  that 
which  is  direct  and  immediate.  When  he  comes,  for  ex- 
ample, to  account  for  our  conceptions  of  God,  though,  with 
singular  inconsistency,  he  uses  terms  expressive  of  present- 
ative cognition,  yet  in  describing  the  process  of  develop- 
ment by  which  we  ascend  to  the  lofty  stage  of  supersensible 


106         STANDARD    AND    NATURE    OF    RELIGION.        [Sect.  II. 

consciousness,  he  gives  us  nothing  but  evolutions  of  reason- 
ing— necessary  deductions  from  our  primitive  and  instinct- 
ive beliefs.  God  is  not  actually  present  as  the  object  of 
consciousness;  He  does  not  stand  before  us  as  the  outward 
object  in  an  act  of  perception :  it  is  the  finite,  limited,  tem- 
porary and  dependent  which  we  immediately  apprehend; 
and,  in  consequence  of  the  necessary  laws  of  mind,  these 
suggest  the  infinite,  eternal,  independent  and  absolute. 
God,  in  other  words,  is  not  known  in  Himself — in  His 
separate  and  distinct  existence, as  a  datum  of  consciousness; 
He  is  apprehended  in  and  through  His  works — through  rela- 
tions intuitively  recognized  and  spontaneously  suggesting 
the  reality  of  His  being.  Or,  we  know  God,  as  we  know 
substance,  in  and  through  attributes.  This  species  of  know- 
ledge is  evidently  indirect  and  mediate.  Take  away  the 
limited,  finite,  contingent,  take  away  the  necessary  belief 
that  these  require  a  cause,  and  you  take  away  all  "Sir.  Mo- 
rell's  consciousness  of  God ;  and  hence  we  believe  in  God, 
not  because  He  is  seen  or  stands  face  to  face  with  any  of 
our  faculties  of  cognition,  but  because  other  things  are  known 
which  are  utterly  inexplicable  except  upon  the  supposition 
of  the  Divine  existence.  "The  heavens  declare  His  glory 
and  the  firmament  showeth  His  handiwork ;"  "  the  invisible 
things  of  Him  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the 
things  that  are  made." 

We  agree  most  fully  that  there  is  a  process  by  which  tlie 
understanding  can,  to  a  limited  extent,  ascend  from  the 
known  to  the  unknown  ;  that  we  are  so  framed  as  that  our- 
selves— our  bodies,  our  souls,  and  nature  around  us — become 
witnesses  for  God;  but  the  knowledge  we  derive  in  this 
way  we  should  never  dream  of  describing  as  immediate, 
presentative  or  direct.  Mr.  Morell  has  been  betrayed  into 
this  inconsistency  by  making  presentation  co-extensive  with 
intuition.  There  is  no  doubt  that  this  knowledge  of  God 
is  intuitive,  as  it  results  from  the  indestructible  categories 
of  thought — which,  developed  into  formal  statements,  are 
self-evident  propositions — in  their  application  to  the  objects 


Sect.  II.]     RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY   CONSIDERED.    107 

furnished  in  experience.  Constituted  as  we  are,  we  can 
neither  cognize  ourselves  nor  the  world  without  a  belief  of 
God :  the  belief  is  inseparably  connected  with  the  cogni- 
tion :  we  can  give  no  reason  for  it  but  that  such  is  the  con- 
stitution of  our  nature  that  when  an  effect  is  given  a  cause 
must  be  admitted,  and  hence,  while  we  may  be  said  to  know 
intuitively,  we  evidently  do  not  know  the  cause  in  itself;  it 
is  mediated  by  the  effect.  The  knowledge,  in  other  words, 
is  intuitive,  but  not  presentative. 

It  is  useless  to  adduce  passages  to  prove  what  no  one, 
perhaps,  will  think  of  disputing,  that  presentation  and  in- 
tuition are  treated  as  synonymous;  but  as  it  may  not  be 
so  readily  conceded  that  mediate  and  indirect  knowledge 
is  also  treated  as  presentative  and  immediate,  we  appeal  to 
the  following  statements  in  justification  of  our  assertion : 

"Let  us  take  a  third  instance.  The  mind,  after  it  has  gazed  for 
awhile  upon  the  phenomena  of  the  world  around,  begins  to  ponder 
within  itself  such  thoughts  as  these :  What  is  this  changing  scene 
which  men  call  nature?  What  then  is  nature?  Of  what  primary 
elements  do  all  things  consist  ?  What  is  the  power  and  the  wisdom 
through  which  their  infinite  forms  of  beauty  spring  forth,  live,  decay, 
and  then  become  instinct  with  a  new  vitality  ?  In  these  questions  we 
again  discern  the  activity  of  a  higher  state  of  consciousness  than  the 
understanding  alone  presents.  The  understanding,  looking  at  the 
objects  presented  to  us  through  the  agency  of  perception,  abstracts 
their  properties  and  classifies  them  ;  in  a  word,  it  separates  things  into 
their  genera  and  species,  and  there  leaves  them.  But  the  pure  rea- 
son, instead  of  separating  the  objects  of  nature  and  classifying  them 
into  various  species,  seeks  rather  to  unite  them,  to  view  them  all 
together — to  find  the  one  fundamental  essence  by  which  they  are 
upheld ;  to  discover  the  great  presiding  principle  by  which  tliey  are 
maintained  in  unbroken  harmony.  The  understanding  has  simply 
to  do  with  separate  objects  viewed  in  their  specific  or  generic  cha- 
racter ;  the  higher  reason  has  to  do  with  them  as  forming  parts  of 
one  vast  totality,  of  which  it  seeks  the  basis,  the  origin  and  the  end. 
With  the  phenomena  of  the  human  mind  it  is  the  same.  The  under- 
standing merely  classifies  them,  the  pure  reason  inquires  into  the 
nature  of  the  principle  from  which  they  spring,  and  views  the 
human  mind  as  a  totality,  expressing  the  will  and  purpose  of  its  great 
Archetype. 

"These  two  efibrts  of  the  reason  to  seek  the  nature  and  origin,  both 


108         STANDARD    AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.        [Sect.  II. 

of  the  universe  and  the  soul,  lead  naturally  and  inevitablj^  to  the  con- 
ception of  some  common  ground  from  which  they  are  both  de- 
rived. The  soul  is  not  self-created,  but  is  consciously  dependent  upon 
some  higher  power.  There  must  be  a  type  after  which  it  was  formed 
— a  self-existent  essence  from  which  it  proceeded — a  supreme  mind 
which  planned  and  created  my  mind.  So  also  with  regard  to  nature. 
If  the  universe,  as  a  whole,  shows  the  most  perfect  harmony;  all  the 
parts  thereof  symmetrically  adapted  to  each  other,  all  proceeding 
onwards  like  a  machine  infinitely  complicate,  yet  never  clashing  in  its 
minutest  wheels  and  movements,  there  must  be  some  mind  vaster 
than  the  universe — one  which  can  take  it  all  in  at  a  single  glance,  one 
which  has  planned  its  harmony  and  keeps  the  whole  system  from 
perturbation.  In  short,  if  there  be  dependent  existence,  there  must 
be  absolute  existence — if  there  be  temporal  and  finite  beings,  there 
must  be  an  Eternal  and  an  Infinite  One.  Thus  the  power  of  intui- 
tion, that  highest  elevation  of  the  human  consciousness,  leads  us  at 
length  into  the  world  of  eternal  realities.  The  period  of  the  mind's 
converse  with  mere  phenomena  being  past,  it  rises  at  length  to  grasp 
the  mystery  of  existence  and  the  problem  of  destiuJ^"  ^ 

We  beg  the  reader  to  examine  carefully  this  passage,  and 
to  lay  his  hand,  if  he  can,  upon  anything  but  a  very  awk- 
ward and  mystical  statement — certainly  a  very  feeble  and 
inadequate  one — of  the  common  a  posteriori  argument  from 
eifect  to  cause.  Instead  of  gazing  directly  upon  the  Supreme 
Being  and  standing  face  to  face  with  the  absolute,  we  gaze 
outwardly  upon  the  world  and  inwardly  upon  ourselves, 
and  are  conducted  by  processes  of  natural  and  spontaneous 
inquiry  to  the  admission  of  an  adequate  and  all-sufficient 
Cause  of  the  wondrous  phenomena  we  behold.  Whether 
our  steps  be  from  the  finite  to  the  infinite,  from  the  de- 
pendent to  the  absolute,  from  the  fleeting  to  the  eternal, 
they  are  the  steps  of  intelligence  mediating  a  knowledge 
of  God  through  relations  which  we  intuitively  recognize. 
We  see  Hiin  only  in  the  operation  of  His  hands.  He  is 
mirrored  in  His  works.  The  knowledge  in  this  case  is 
precisely  analogous  to  that  of  tlie  external  world  whicli  tlie 
Hypothetical  Realists  ascribe  to  us.  We  are  not  directly 
conscious  of  its  existence,  but  are  conscious  of  effects  pro- 
1  Pages  20-22. 


Sect.  II.]      RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.    109 

diiced  in  ourselves,  which  tlie  constitution  of  our  nature 
determines  us  to  refer  to  outward  and  independent  realities. 
If  Mr.  Morell  seriously  believes  that  our  knowledge  of 
God  is  presentative,  he  is  bound,  of  course,  that  he  may  be 
consistent  with  himself,  to  postulate  a  faculty  through  which 
the  Divine  Being  may  be  given  as  the  immediate  object  of 
involuntary  consciousness.  We  have  the  senses  through 
which  the  v^arious  properties  of  matter  are  directly  and 
spontaneously  cognized ;  we  have  taste  and  conscience,  which 
bring  us  into  contact  with  the  beautiful  and  the  deformed,  the 
right  and  the  wrong ;  and,  to  preserve  the  analogy,  we  must 
have  some  power  or  sense  which  shall  be  directly  conver- 
sant about  God — a  faculty  of  the  Divine  or  the  absolute, 
sustaining  the  same  relations  to  the  Deity  which  the  senses 
sustain  to  the  outward  world,  taste  to  the  fair,  and  con- 
science to  the  right.  This  is  the  only  way  in  which  the 
theory  of  presentative  knowledge  can  be  consistently  carried 
out  in  its  application  to  God.  But  if  this  be  admitted,  it 
is  as  absurd  to  talk  of  hunting  up  the  Deity  through  the 
realms  of  matter  and  of  mind,  to  be  feeling,  inquiring  and 
searching  after  Him  in  the  regions  of  the  finite,  limited  and 
dependent,  as  it  is  to  represent  men  as  seeking  the  primary 
qualities  of  matter,  or  the  elementary  distinctions  betwixt 
beauty  and  deformity,  a  virtue  and  a  crime.  All  present- 
ative knowledge  comes,  in  the  first  instance,  unbidden. 
There  is  no  appetite  or  instinct  for  it  which  leads  us  in 
quest  of  it.  We  had  no  conception  of  matter  until  we 
were  made  conscious  of  its  existence;  beauty  was  an  unmean- 
ing word,  and  we  should  never  have  known  how  to  set 
about  comprehending  its  meaning  until  the  experience  of 
it  was  first  felt;  and  if  there  be  a  separate  and  distinct 
faculty  of  God,  He  must  be  absolutely  incognizable  and 
inconceivable  by  us  until  He  reaches  us  through  the  me- 
dium or  instrumentality  of  this  faculty.  He  must  come 
into  the  mind  like  extension,  figure,  solidity — like  beauty, 
virtue  and  all  our  simple  and  elementary  cognitions.  He 
is  not  to  be  a  craving  of  our  nature — something  longed  for 


no         STANDARD    AND   NATURE    OF   RELIGION.        [Sect.  II. 

and  yearned  after;  but  an  immediate  datum  of  conscious- 
ness— something  which  we  know  to  be,  because  he  is  now 
and  here  present  to  intelligence.  But  the  passage  which 
we  have  just  quoted  from  our  author  is  directly  in  the 
teeth  of  any  such  doctrine.  There  is  no  presentation  there 
of  any  objective  realities  in  themselves,  but  the  finite,  de- 
pendent and  phenomenal — these  are  alone  present  in  con- 
sciousness; but  being  cognized  as  effects,  they  give  us,  as 
vouchers  and  witnesses,  other  existences  beyond  themselves. 
They  testify  of  God,  but  do  not  present  God.  They  develope 
a  belief  which  is  natural,  spontaneous  and  irresistible, 
whose  object  is  unknown  except  in  so  far  as  it  may  be 
collected  from  their  qualities  and  attributes  in  their  rela- 
tions to  it. 

Mr.  Morell  is  equally  at  fault  in  the  account  which  he 
has  given  of  the  logical  consciousness.  This,  we  have  seen, 
he  employs  as  a  compendious  expression  for  all  our  facul- 
ties of  representative  knowledge.  It  embraces  those  pro- 
cesses of  the  mind  which  relate  to  the  combination,  arrange- 
ment and  structure  of  the  sciences,  which  conduct  us  from 
particular  phenomena  to  general  laws,  which  group  indi- 
vidual existences  into  classes,  and  perform  the  functions 
which  are  commonly  denominated  discursive.  Its  first 
office  is  to  turn  our  intuitions  into  notions  or  conceptions — 
to  give  us  representatives,  through  the  acts  of  the  intellect, 
of  the  real  and  independent  existences  Avhich  are  grasped 
by  the  faculty  of  inward  or  outward  perception.  It  ideal- 
izes, in  other  words,  the  matter  of  our  direct  and  present- 
ative  knowledge.  It  then  decomposes  its  conceptions,  fixes 
upon  one  or  more  elements  contained  in  them,  abstracts 
these  from  the  rest,  and  makes  tliese  abstractions  the  grounds 
of  classification.  To  it  belong  memory,  the  mediate  know- 
ledge of  the  past;  imagination,  the  mediate  knowledge  of 
the  conceivable  and  possible;  and,  if  Mr.  Morell  admits 
such  a  thing  as  possible,  i^rescience  or  the  mediate  know- 
ledge of  the  future.  He  calls  this  complement  of  faculties 
lofjic(d ;  and  we  think  the  epithet  well  cliosen  to  designate 


Sect.  II.]     RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY   CONSIDERED.    Ill 

representative  in  contradistinction  from  presentative  know- 
ledge, because  it  is  in  them  that  the  mind  is  specially 
cogitative — it  is  in  them  that  the  laws  and  necessary  forms 
of  thought  which  it  is  the  office  of  logic  to  investigate  are 
conspicuously  developed.  In  presentation  the  mind  knows; 
in  representation  the  mind  thinks.  In  presentation  there 
is  an  immediate  object  apart  from  the  mind ;  in  representa- 
tion nothing  is  directly  given  but  the  acts  of  the  mind 
itself.  In  presentation  the  mind  may  be  regarded  as  com- 
paratively passive;  in  representation  it  is  wholly  and  essen- 
tially active.  In  presentation,  accordingly,  the  prominent 
matter  is  the  object  of  cognition;  in  representation,  the 
categories  of  thought.  There  are  two  points,  however,  in 
Mr.  Morell's  doctrine  of  the  logical  consciousness  against 
which  we  must  enter  a  solemn  and  decided  protest.  The 
first  is,  that  our  conceptions  cannot  exactly  represent  our 
intuitions — that  the  remote  and  ultimate  object,  as  given 
in  an  act  of  mediate  and  representative  cognition,  is  not 
precisely  the  same  as  the  immediate  object  in  an  act  of 
direct  and  presentative  cognition.  The  other  is,  that  the 
understanding  cannot  enlarge  our  knowledge  of  numerical 
existences ;  that  we  can  only  think  the  precise,  identical 
realities  which  have  been  given  in  experience,  and  can 
infer  and  prove  the  substantive  existence  of  naught  beyond 
them. 

In  relation  to  the  first  point,  we  can  only  speak  of  what 
strikes  us  as  the  prevailing  doctrine  of  the  book,  for  the 
author  is  so  vague,  vacillating  and  inconsistent  in  his 
account  of  conception  that  we  freely  admit  that  he  appears 
in  two  passages  to  teach  the  doctrine  for  which  we  contend. 
But  as  a  general  thing  he  maintains  that  the  understanding 
is  exclusively  conversant  about  attributes  or  properties. 
"It  has  to  do,"  he  informs  us,  "entirely  with  the  attributes 
of  things — separating,  scrutinizing,  classifying  them,  and 
adapting  them,  by  the  aid  of  judgment  and  reasoning,  to 
all  the  purposes  of  human  existence."  "Thus  every  no- 
tion" [conception],  he  tells  us  in  another  place,  "  we  have 


112  STANDARD    AXD    NATURE    OF    RELIGION.        [Sect.  II. 

of  an  external  object — as  a  house,  or  a  tree,  or  a  flower — is 
compounded  of  two  elements,  a  material  and  a  formal. 
The  matter  is  furnished  by  the  direct  sensational  intuition 
of  a  concrete  reality,  and  this  is  perception ;  the  form  is 
furnished  by  the  logical  faculty,  which,  separating  the  attri- 
butes of  the  object,  as  given  in  perce})tion,  from  the  essence, 
constructs  a  notion  or  idea  [conception]  which  can  be  clearly 
defined  and  employed  as  a  fixed  term  in  the  region  of  our 
reflective  knowledge."     And  again: 

"  Of  mere  phenomena  we  can  gain  a  very  good  knowledge  by  an  in- 
termediate or  logical  process.  We  can  have  the  different  attributes 
presented  to  us  as  abstract  ideas ;  we  can  put  these  attributes  together 
one  by  one,  and  thus  form  a  conception  of  the  whole  thing  as  a  j^^ie- 
nomenon ;  but  this  cannpt  be  done  in  regard  to  any  elementary  and 
essential  existence.  Of  substance,  for  example,  we  can  gain  no  con- 
ception by  a  logical  definition;  the  attempt  to  do  so  has,  in  fact, 
always  ended  in  the  denial  of  substance  altogether,  considered  as  an 
objective  reality ;  it  becomes  in  this  way  simply  the  projected  shadow 
of  our  own  faculties.  The  only  refuge  against  this  logical  skepticism, 
which  has  been  uniformly  attached  itself  to  a  sensational  philosophy, 
is  in  the  immediacy  of  our  higher  knowledge — in  the  fact  that  we  see 
and  feel  the  existence  of  a  substantial  reality  around  us,  without  the 
aid  of  any  logical  idea  or  definition  by  which  it  can  be  i-epresented  or 
conveyed. ' '  ^ 

Mr.  Morell  surely  cannot  mean  that  through  any  repre- 
sentative faculty,  original  ideas  can  be  imparted  of  attri- 
butes and  qualities  which  had  never  been  presentatively 
given — that  a  blind  man  can  be  instructed  in  colours  by  a 
logical  definition,  or  a  deaf  man  in  sounds.  Every  simple 
idea,  whether  of  qualities  or  not,  must,  in  the  first  instance, 
have  been  conveyed  in  an  act  of  immediate  cognition. 
What  we  understand  Mr.  Morell  as  teaching  is,  that  the 
conceptions  of  the  understanding  do  not  adequately  rep- 
resent the  cognitions  of  intuition ;  that  the  phenomenon 
does  not  mirror  the  whole  reality;  that  there  is  something- 
given  in  perception  which  cannot  be  mediated  by  an  act  of 
mind.  It  is  true  that  this  mysterious  something  is  described 
as  the  essence  or  substance  of  the  thing  perceived ;  and  it  is 
1  Page  37. 


Sect.  II.]      religion    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.    113 

equally  true  that  essences  or  substances  are  only  matters  of 
belief;  we  neither  see  them  nor  feel  them — they  lie  beyond 
the  boundaries  of  knowledge,  whether  presentative  or  other- 
wise. But  we  maintain  that  whatever  can  be  perceived  or 
immediately  known  can  be  also  imagined  or  conceived.  We 
can  frame  an  image  or  notion  which  shall  exactly  correspond 
to  the  tvhole  object  of  an  inward  or  outward  perception. 
We  can  represent  all  the  essence  that  we  ever  knew.  There 
is  no  diiference  between  the  remote  and  ultimate  object  in 
an  act  of  representative,  and  the  immediate  and  present 
object  in  an  act  of  immediate  and  presentative,  cognition. 
Unless  Mr.  Morell  admits  what  we  understand  him  to 
deny,  that  the  vicarious  knowledge  involved  in  conception 
answers  exactly  to  the  original  knowledge  given  in  intui- 
tion, he  must  maintain  that  the  knowledge  of  any  exist- 
ence but  that  which  is  now  and  here  present  in  conscious- 
ness is  impossible.  All  else  becomes  purely  ideal — our 
conceptions  cease  to  be  representative;  for  the  very  notion 
of  representation  implies  a  reality  apart  from  itself  which, 
as  represented,  is  known.  To  affirm  that  the  representative 
does  not  truly  mirror  the  original  is  to  invalidate  the  only 
conceivable  process  by  which  we  can  pass  from  the  ideal  to 
the  actual.  It  is  to  deny  the  fidelity  of  our  faculties  in  the 
irresistible  conviction  which  we  have  of  the  reality  of  the 
original,  though  mediated,  idea,  and  thus  to  lay  the  founda- 
tion of  universal  skepticism.  To  illustrate  by  an  example: 
memory  is  the  mediate  knowledge  of  the  past.  The  house, 
or  man,  or  flower  which  we  saw  yesterday,  and  remember 
to  have  seen  to-day,  has  no  longer  a  present  existence  in 
consciousness;  what  we  now  contemplate,  and  immediately 
cognize,  is  not  the  thing  itself,  but  a  conception  which  we 
feel  to  be  its  representative.  According  to  our  author, 
however,  this  conception  is  partial  and  inadequate — it  does 
not  embrace  all  that  we  saw;  the  most  important  part,  the 
only  part  indeed  which  was  real,  has  been  omitted.  But 
consciousnesss  assures  us  that  we  distinctly  and  adequately 
recollect  our  perception  of  yesterday — the  whole  perception 

Vol.  III.— 3 


114  STANDARD   AND    NATURE   OF   RELIGION.       [Sect.  11. 

precisely  as  it  was  experienced;  that,  to  accommodate  the 
language  of  Mr.  Hume,  the  present  idea  is  an  exact  tran- 
script of  the  former  impression.  If,  now,  consciousness  de- 
ceives us  in  this  case,  if  it  lies  in  pronouncing  that  to  be  an 
adequate  representative  which  is  partial,  maimed  and  defect- 
ive, what  guarantee  have  we  for  its  veracity  in  any  case  ? 
And  how,  especially,  shall  we  prove  that  memory  and  all 
our  powers  of  mediate  knowledge  are  not  faculties  of  mere 
delusion?  Mr.  Morell,  it  seems  to  us,  must  deny  all  object- 
ive existences  apart  from  the  mind,  or  he  must  admit  that 
the  understanding  can  frame  conceptions  exactly  commen- 
surate with  original  intuitions.  This,  we  conceive  to  be 
the  fundamental  condition  of  the  certainty  of  all  represent- 
ative knowledge.  We  see  no  alternative  between  pure 
idealism  and  this  theory  of  the  understanding.  When  it 
abstracts  and  fixes  its  attention  upon  one  or  more  attributes, 
performing  what  Mr.  Morell  regards  as  its  characteristic 
functions,  these  attributes  are  not  absolutely  conceived,  but 
relatively,  as  the  attributes  of  real  things. 

The  other  point — that  the  understanding  cannot  enlarge 
the  boundaries  of  knowledge — Mr.  Morell  seems  uniformly 
to  treat  as  wellnigh  self-evident. 

"And  yet  this  logical  consciousness,  although  it  is  the  great  instru- 
ment of  practical  life,  is  entirely  subjective  and  formal.  The  material 
with  wliich  it  has  to  do  is  wholly  given  in  sensation  and  percep- 
tion ;  all  that  it  furnishes  in  addition  to  this  are  forms  of  thought, 
general  notions,  categories  and  internal  processes,  which  have  an 
abstract  or  logical  value,  but  which,  when  viewed  alone,  are  absolutely 
void  of  all  '  content.'  "  ^ 

If  Mr.  Morell  means  nothing  more  than  that  the  under- 
standing can  furnish  no  original  ideas  beyond  the  contents 
of  intuition,  the  proposition,  though  unquestionably  true, 
is  far  from  being  new.  It  is  universally  conceded  that  no 
powers  of  conception,  imagination,  memory  or  reasoning, 
no  processes  of  definition,  analysis  or  judgment,  can  supply 
the  elementary  notions  of  the  senses  to  one  who  was  desti- 
I  Page  16. 


Sect.  II.]      RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.    115 

tute  of  the  material  organism.  But  if  he  means,  what  the 
tenor  of  his  argument  demands,  and  what  we,  accordingly, 
understand  him  to  a.ssert,  that,  all  our  simple  ideas  being 
given,  the  understanding  or  the  law*s  of  thought  cannot 
conduct  us  to  the  full  conviction  of  existences  lying  beyond 
the  range  of  present  intuition,  the  proposition  is  just  as  un- 
questionably false.  What  transcends  the  limits  of  moment- 
ary experience  can  either  not  be  known  at  all,  or  it  must  be 
known  through  the  medium  of  the  logical  consciousness. 
If  it  cannot  be  known  at  all,  then  human  knowledge,  in 
regard  to  external  things,  is  limited  to  what  is  in  immediate 
contact  with  the  organs  of  sense;  in  regard  to  internal 
things,  to  the  fleeting  consciousness  of  the  moment.  We 
can  know  nothing  of  the  past,  we  can  know  nothing  of  the 
distant,  we  can  predict  nothing  of  the  future.  In  other 
words,  all  science  is  a  rank  delusion;  even  our  knowledge 
of  the  material  world,  as  embracing  a  wide  range  of  exist- 
ence, is  an  inference  of  the  understanding,  and  not  the 
result  of  a  direct  perception  of  its  amplitude  and  variety. 
Upon  the  theory  of  external  perception  which  Mr.  Morell 
has  adopted  it  is  intuitively  obvious  that  we  can  perceive 
nothing,  or  have  a  presentative  cognition  of  nothing,  but 
that  which  is  in  contact  with  our  material  organism.  The 
sun,  moon  and  stars  are  not  objects  of  perception,  but  of 
inference;  they  are  not  directly,  but  representatively  known. 
We  can  immediately  know  only  what  is  now  and  here  pres- 
ent in  consciousness. 

"In  the  third  place,"  says  Sir  William  Hamilton,^  "  to  this  head  we 
may  refer  Reid's  inaccuracy  in  regard  to  the  precise  object  of  percep- 
tion. This  object  is  not,  as  he  seems  frequently  to  assert,  any  distant 
reality ;  for  we  are  percipient  of  nothing  but  what  is  in  proximate 
contact,  in  immediate  relation,  with  our  organs  of  sense.  Distant 
realities  we  reach,  not  by  perception,  but  by  a  subsequent  process  of 
inference,  founded  thereon ;  and  so  far,  as  he  somewhere  says,  from  all 
men  who  look  upon  the  sun  perceiving  the  same  object,  in  reality 
every  individual,  in  this  instance,  perceives  a  different  object,  nay,  a 
different  object  in  each  several  eye.  The  doctrine  of  Natural  Realism 
requires  no  such  untenable  assumption  for  its  basis.  It  is  sufficient  to 
1  Hamilton's  Reid,  p.  814. 


116         STANDARD    AND   NATURE   OF    RELIGION.        [Sect.  11. 

establish  the  simple  fact  that  we  are  competent,  as  consciousness 
assures  us,  immediately  to  apprehend  through  sense  the  non-ego  in 
certain  limited  relations ;  and  it  is  of  no  consequence  whatever,  either 
to  our  certainty  of  the  reality  of  a  material  world,  or  to  our  ultimate 
knowledge  of  its  properties,  whether,  by  this  primary  apprehension, 
we  lay  hold,  in  the  first  instance,  on  a  larger  or  a  lesser  portion  of  its 
contents."  And  in  another  place:*  "A  thing  to  be  knoyrn  in  itself 
must  be  known  as  actually  existing,  and  it  cannot  be  known  as  actually 
existing  unless  it  be  known  as  existing  in  its  When  and  its  Where.  But 
the  When  and  Where  of  an  object  are  immediately  cognizable  by  the 
subject,  only  if  the  When  be  now  {i.  e.,  at  the  same  moment  with 
the  cognitive  act),  and  the  where  be  here,  [i.  e.,  within  the  sphere  of 
the  cognitive  faculty) ;  therefore  a  presentative  or  intuitive  knowledge 
is  only  com]ietent  of  an  object  present  to  the  mind  both  in  time  and 
space.  E  converso,  whatever  is  known,  but  not  as  actually  existing 
now  and  here,  is  known  not  in  itself,  as  the  presentative  object  of 
an  intuitive,  but  only  as  the  remote  object  of  a  representative, 
cognition." 

Upon  the  hypothesis  of  Mr.  Morell,  accordingly,  which 
restricts  the  operations  of  the  understanding  to  the  specific 
contents  which  have  been  given  in  actual  intuitions,  the 
worlds  which  astronomy  discloses  to  our  faith  are  merely 
subjective  forms  and  logical  processes,  and  not  realities  at 
all.  All  the  deductions  of  pure  mathematics  are  sheer 
delusions,  inasmuch  as  they  are  the  products  of  the  under- 
standing operating  upon  the  primary  qualities  of  matter, 
which  alone  are  furnished  in  perception.  That  the  results 
which  the  chemist  has  obtained  to-day,  shall,  under  the 
same  circumstances,  be  verified  to-morrow,  that  like  ante- 
cedents shall  be  attended  with  like  consequents  in  all  the 
departments  of  philosophy,  cannot  with  confidence  be  pre- 
dicted, since  that  would  be  a  present  knowledge  of  a  future 
event,  and  involve  a  fact  numerically  diiferent  from  any 
which  had  ever  been  given  in  experience.  To  say  that  the 
understanding  cannot  compass  other  realities  beside  the 
precise  identical  ones  which  have  been  or  are  present  in 
consciousness  is  to  pull  down  the  entire  fabric  of  human 
science,  to  leave  us  nothing  of  nature  but  the  small  frag 
ment  of  its  objects  within  the  immediate  sphere  of  our 
1  Ilaniilton's  Roid,  p.  809. 


Sect.  II.]      RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.    117 

faculties,  to  make  us,  without  a  figure,  the  creatures  of  the 
passing  moment.  All  that  can  be  maintained  is,  that  the 
understanding  cannot  conduct  us  to  the  knowledge  of  exist- 
ences involving  elements  which  have  not  been  derived 
from  some,  objects  of  actual  intuition.  But  it  may  infer 
and  prove  the  existence  of  realities  involving  these  ele- 
ments in  different  degrees  and  different  modes  of  combi- 
nation from  any  that  have  actually  fallen  within  the  sphere 
of  consciousness.  We  can  prove  the  existence  of  the  sun, 
and  yet  we  may  have  never  seen  him.  Without  a  specific 
presentation  of  his  substantive  reality,  we  can  frame  the  con- 
ception of  him  by  a  combination  of  attributes  which  have 
been  repeatedly  given  in  other  instances  of  intuition.  We 
ascribe  to  him  nothing  but  what  we  know  from  experience 
to  be  properties  of  matter,  and  what  we  know  he  must  pos- 
sess in  order  to  produce  the  effects  which  he  does  produce. 
We  believe  in  the  existence  of  animals  that  we  never  saw, 
of  lands  that  we  are  never  likely  to  visit,  of  changes  and 
convulsions  that  shook  our  globe  centuries  before  its  present 
inhabitants  were  born;  and  though  we  have  no  experience 
of  the  future,  we  can  frame  images  of  coming  events,  all 
of  which  may,  and  some  of  which,  as  the  decay  and  disso- 
lution of  our  bodies,  most  assuredly  will,  take  place.  Were 
there  not  a  law  of  our  nature  by  which  we  are  determined 
to  judge  of  the  future  by  the  past,  and  a  uniformity  of 
events  which  exactly  answers  to  it,  the  physical  sciences 
would  be  impossible,  and  prudential  rules  for  the  regulation 
of  conduct  utterly  absurd. 

So  far,  indeed,  is  it  from  being  true  that  the  understand- 
ing does  not  enlarge  our  knowledge  of  real  existences,  tluit 
it  is  precisely  the  faculty  or  complement  of  faculties  which 
gives  us  the  principal  part  of  that  knowledge.  Intuition 
supplies  us  with  very  few  objects,  it  is  limited  to  a  very 
narrow  sphere;  but  in  the  materials  which  it  does  embrace 
it  gives  us  the  constituents  of  all  beings  that  we  arc  capable 
of  conceiving.  The  understanding,  impelled  to  action  in 
the  first  instance  by  the  presentation  of  realities,  goes  for- 


118         STANDARD   AND    NATURE   OF   RELIGION.       [Sect.  11. 

ward  in  obedience  to  the  laws  of  thought,  and  infers  a 
multitude  of  beings  lying  beyond  the  range  of  our  presen- 
tation, some  like  those  that  have  been  given,  others  pos- 
sessed of  the  same  elementary  qualities  in  different  degrees 
and  proportions.  It  is  impossible  to  say  how  much  our 
knowledge  is  extended — our  knowledge,  we  mean,  of  ver- 
itable, objective  realities — by  the  processes  involved  in 
general  reasoning.  We  can  form  some  conception  of  the 
immense  importance  of  abstraction  and  generalization,  as 
subservient  to  intellectual  improvement,  by  imagining  what 
our  condition  would  be  if  we  were  deprived  of  the  benefits 
of  language.  How  much  better,  apart  from  speech,  would 
be  our  knowledge  than  the  crude  apprehension  of  the  brute? 
He  has,  no  doubt,  all  the  intuitions  of  the  primary  qualities 
of  matter  which  we  possess,  but  he  knows  them  only  as  in 
this  or  that  object;  he  has  never  been  able  to  abstract, 
generalize,  classify  and  name ;  and  therefore  his  know- 
ledge must  always  be  limited  to  the  particular  things  now 
and  here  present  in  consciousness.     He  can  have  no  science. 

To  us  it  is  almost  intuitively  obvious  that  the  under- 
standing, as  the  organ  of  science,  is  pre-eminently  the  fac- 
ulty of  knowledge.  Intuition  gives  us  the  alphabet;  the 
understanding  combines  and  arranges  the  letters,  in  con- 
formity with  the  necessary  forms  of  thought,  into  the  words 
which  utter  the  great  realities  of  nature,  whether  material, 
moral  or  intellectual.  Intuition  is  the  germ,  the  bud ;  un- 
derstanding, the  tree,  in  full  and  majestic  proportions, 
spreading  its  branches  and  scattering  its  fruits  on  all  sides. 
Intuition  is  the  insect's  eye,  contracted  to  a  small  portion 
of  space  and  a  smaller  fragment  of  things;  understanding, 
the  telescope,  which  embraces  within  its  scope  the  limitless 
expanse  of  worlds — "of  planets,  suns  and  adamantine 
spheres,  wheeling  unshaken  through  the  void  immense." 

Mr.  Morell  has  been  betrayed  into  his  inadequate  rep- 
resentation of  the  understanding  as  an  instrument  of  know- 
Icduc  bv  adhering  too  closely  to  the  Kantian  theory  of  its 
nature  as  subjective  and  formal,  without  a  reference  to  the 


Sect.  II.]      RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.    119 

circumstances  by  which  the  theory,  though  essentially  just, 
must  be  limited  and  modified.  We  believe  most  fully  that 
there  are  and  must  be  laws  or  categories  of  thought — that 
there  must  be  conditions  in  the  subject  adapting  it  to  know, 
as  well  as  conditions  in  the  object  adapting  it  to  be  known. 
Thinking  is  not  an  arbitrary  process,  our  faculties  of  rep- 
resentation do  not  operate  at  random;  there  are  forms  of 
cogitation  which  cannot  be  separated  from  intelligence 
without  destroying  its  nature.  We  care  not  by  what  names 
they  are  called;  they  certainly  exist,  and  it  is  the  special 
function  of  logic  to  investigate  and  analyze  them.  But  one 
thing  is  set  over  against  another.  These  laws  of  the  under- 
standing are  designed  to  qualify  it  to  be  an  instrument  of 
knowledge.  They  are  the  conditions  by  which  a  limited  and 
finite  creature  can  stretch  its  intelligence  beyond  the  points 
of  space  and  time  in  which  its  existence  is  fixed.  The 
laws  of  thought  are  so  adjusted  to  the  laws  of  existence 
that  whatever  is  true  of  our  conceptions  wull  always  be  true 
of  the  things  which  our  conceptions  represent.  The  opera- 
tions of  the  understanding,  though  primarily  and  imme- 
diately about  its  own  acts,  are  remotely  and  mediately  about 
other  objects.  Its  acts  are  representative,  and  hence  it  deals 
with  realities  through  their  symbols.  If  Mr.  Morell  had 
kept  steadily  in  view  the  representative  character  of  our 
logical  conceptions,  he  would  have  seen  that  they  must  have 
respect  to  something  beyond  themselves  which  is  not  sub- 
jective and  formal.  He  would  have  seen  that  every  opera- 
tion of  mind  rtiust  be  cognitive — must  involve  a  judg- 
ment. Every  conception  implies  the  belief  that  it  is  the 
image  of  something  real,  that  has  been  given  in  experience ; 
every  fancy  implies  a  judgment  that  it  is  the  image  of 
something  possible,  that  might  be  given  in  experience.  At- 
tention to  this  circumstance  of  the  cognitive  character  of 
all  the  operations  of  mind  would  have  saved  him  from  the 
error  of  supposing  that  the  acts  of  the  understanding  are 
exclusively  formal.  Kant  knew  nothing  of  the  distinction 
betwixt  presentative   and    representative   knowledge.     His 


120         STANDARD   AND    NATURE   OF   RELIGION.       [Sect.  II, 

conceptions,  therefore,  involved  no  judgment — they  were 
not  the  images  of  a  reality,  as  given  in  intuition ;  they  were 
purely  the  products  of  the  mind,  and  corresponded  to 
nothing  beyond  the  domain  of  consciousness.  Had  he 
recognized  the  truth  that  every  intellectual  act  is  cognitive, 
and  every  act  of  the  understanding  representative,  he  would 
have  "  saved  the  main  pillars  of  human  belief;"  and  while 
he  still  might  have  taught,  what  we  believe  he  has  unan- 
swerably demonstrated,  that  space  and  time  are  native 
notions  of  the  mind  and  not  generalizations  from  experience, 
he  would  have  seen  that,  as  native  notions,  they  are  the 
indispensable  conditions  of  its  apprehending  the  time  and 
space  properties  of  matter,  and  have  accorded,  consequently, 
an  objective  reality  to  extension,  solidity  and  figure  which 
his  theory,  in  its  present  form,  denies;  he  would  have  seen 
that  the  understanding  is  as  truly  conversant  about  things 
as  intuition — that  the  only  difference  betwixt  them  in  this 
respect  is,  that  the  one  deals  with  them  and  apprehends 
them  directly,  the  other,  through  means  of  representa- 
tives, and  that,  consequently,  the  conclusions  of  the  under- 
standing, legitimately  reached,  must  have  a  counterpart 
in  objective  reality  as  truly  as  the  cognitions  of  sense.  We 
are  sorry  to  say  that  Mr.  Morell,  though  professing  to 
adopt  the  distinctions  to  which  we  have  adverted,  falls 
again  and  again  into  the  peculiarities  of  the  Kantian  hy- 
pothesis, against  which  they  are  a  protest.  Take  the  fol- 
lowing passage: 

"Perception,  viewed  alone,  indicates  simply  the  momentary  con- 
sciousness of  an  external  reality  standing  before  us  face  to  face,  but 
it  gives  us  no  notion  which  we  can  define  and  express  by  a  term. 
To  do  this  is  the  office  of  the  understanding — the  logical  or  con- 
structive faculty,  which  seizes  upon  the  concrete  material  that  is  given 
immediately  in  perception,  moulds  it  into  an  idea,  expresses  this 
idea  by  a  word  or  sign,  and  then  lays  it  up  in  the  memory,  as  it  were 
a  hewn  stone,  all  shaped  and  prepared  for  use  whenever  it  may  be 
required,  either  for  ordinary  life  or  for  constructing  a  scientific  system. 
Thus  every  notion  we  have  of  an  external  object — as  a  house,  a  tree, 
or  a  flower — is  compounded  of  two  elements,  a  material  and  a  formal. 


Sect.  II.]     RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY   CONSIDERED.    121 

The  matter  is  furnished  by  the  direct  sensational  intuition  of  a  con- 
crete reaUty ;  and  this  is  perception  :  the  form  is  furnished  by  the  logical 
faculty,  which,  separating  the  attributes  of  the  object  as  given  in  per- 
ception from  the  essence,  constructs  a  notion  or  idea,  which  can  be 
clearly  defined  and  employed  as  a  fixed  term  in  the  region  of  our 
reflective  knowledge. ' '  ^ 

This  passage,  upon  any  theory  but  that  of  Kant — and 
even  upon  that  theory  it  requires  modification — is  absolutely 
unintelligible.  Upon  the  theory  which  Mr.  Morell  pro- 
fesses to  adopt  it  is  pure  gibberish.  "  The  understanding 
seizes  upon  the  concrete  material  that  is  given  immediately  in 
perception.^'  Now  this  "concrete  material"  was  the  "ex- 
ternal reality  standing  before  us  face  to  face."  Are  we  then 
to  understand  that  the  understanding  captures  the  outward 
object  itself  f  If  so,  it  surely  has  matter  as  well  as  form. 
But  then  it  moulds  the  concrete  material  into  an  idea,  dubs 
it  with  a  name  and  lays  it  away  in  the  memory.  What 
does  he  mean,  what  can  he  mean,  by  moulding  an  external 
reality  into  an  idea  ?  But  it  seems  that  in  this  moulding 
process,  though  the  understanding  had  originally  seized  the 
concrete  reality,  yet  by  some  means  or  other  the  essence 
slipped  between  its  fingers,  and  the  notion  or  idea  lodged 
away  in  the  memory  retains  nothing  but  the  qualities.  Now 
what  is  the  real  process  of  the  mind  which  all  this  nonsense 
is  designed  to  represent?  Perception  gives  us  the  external 
reality  in  those  qualities  which  our  faculties  are  capable  of 
apprehending.  We  know  it  in  itself,  and  as  now  and  here 
existing.  Conception,  or  rather  imagination,  is  an  act  of 
the  understanding,  producing  an  image  or  representative  of 
the  object;  it  seizes  upon  no  material  given  from  without; 
the  immediate  matter  of  its  knowledge  is  its  own  act,  and 
that  act,  from  its  very  constitution,  vicarious  of  something 
beyond  itself  "A  representation,"  says  Sir  William  Ham- 
ilton,^  "considered  as  an  object,  is  logically,  not  really,  dif- 
ferent from  a  representation  considered  as  an  act.  Here, 
object  and  act  are  the  same  indivisible  mode  of  mind 
1  Page  72.  2  Plam ikon's  Reid,  p.  809. 


122         STANDARD   AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.       [Sect.  II. 

viewed  in  two  different  relations.  Considered  by  reference 
to  a  mediate  object  represented,  it  is  a  representative  object; 
considered  by  reference  to  the  mind  representing  and  con- 
templating the  representation,  it  is  a  representative  act." 
Hence,  in  every  operation  of  the  logical  consciousness  what 
we  immediately  know  is  not  the  external  reality,  but  a  modi- 
fication of  the  mind  itself,  and  through  that  modification 
we  know  the  external  object.  The  form  and  immediate 
matter,  therefore,  cannot  be  separated  even  in  thought. 

Mr.  Morell  indeed  speaks  of  forms  and  categories  of 
thought  in  such  terms  as  to  imply  that  the  mind  creates  the 
qualities  which  it  represents  in  its  conceptions.  This,  of 
course,  is  to  deny  that  its  acts  are  properly  representative — 
to  shut  us  up  within  the  prison  of  hopeless  idealism.  The 
laws  of  thought  enable  the  mind,  not  to  create,  but  to  image, 
figure  or  represent;  they  enable  it  to  think  a  thing  which  is 
not  before  it,  but  they  do  not  enable  it  to  invest  it  with  a 
single  property  which  it  does  not  possess;  and  they  are 
violated  whenever  a  thing  is  thought  otherwise  than  as  it 
actually  exists.  The  mind  as  intelligent,  and  things  as 
intelligible,  are  adapted  to  each  other. 

We  may  now  condense  into  a  short  compass  what  we  con- 
ceive to  be  the  truth,  in  contradistinction  from  Mr.  Morell's 
doctrine  of  the  understanding,  on  the  points  to  which  we 
have  adverted.  We  believe,  then,  that  this  faculty,  or  rather 
complement  of  faculties,  possesses  the  power  of  represent- 
ing, and  of  completely  and  adequately  representing,  every 
individual  thing,  whether  a  concrete  whole  or  a  single  attri- 
bute, which  ever  has  been  presented  in  intuition.  ''  It 
stamps,"  in  the  language  of  Aristotle,  "  a  kind  of  impres- 
sion of  the  total  process  of  perception,  after  the  manner  of 
one  Avho  applies  a  signet  to  wax."  This  is  the  fundamental 
condition  of  the  certainty  of  its  results.  For,  as  Sir  Wil- 
liam Hamilton  expresses  it,  "it  is  only  deserving  of  the 
name  of  knoMdedge  in  so  far  it  is  conformable  to  the  intui- 
tions it  represents."  There  is  no  separation  of  the  essence 
from  the  attributes  in  an   act  of  recoUective  imagination; 


Sect.  II.]     RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDEEED.    1 23 

what  was  given  in  intuition,  and  all  that  was  given,  is  pic- 
tured in  the  image.  As  representative,  we  believe,  in  the 
next  place,  that  the  understanding  is  ultimately  conversant 
about  things — realities — and  not  fictions  or  empty  forms. 
What  it  proves  of  its  conceptions  legitimately  framed  will 
hold  good  of  the  objects  which  they  represent;  its  ideas 
are,  if  we  may  so  speak,  the  language  of  reality.  In  the 
next  place,  it  is  not  confined  to  the  numerical  particulars 
which  have  been  actually  given  in  intuition.  It  is  depend- 
ent upon  presentation  for  all  the  elements  it  employs  in  its 
representations — it  can  originate  no  new  simple  idea;  but 
testimony  and  the  evidence  of  facts,  induction  and  deduc- 
tion, may  lead  it — may  compel  it — to  acknowledge  the  ex- 
istence of  beings  which  in  their  concrete  realities  have 
never  been  matters  of  direct  experience.  It  frames  a  con- 
ception of  them  from  the  combination  of  the  elements 
given  in  intuition  in  such  proportions  as  the  evidence 
before  it  seems  to  warrant.  Thus  the  geologist  describes 
the  animals  which  perished  amid  what  he  believes  to  be 
the  ruins  of  a  former  world ;  thus  we  believe  in  the  mon- 
sters of  other  climes,  the  facts  of  history  and  the  calcula- 
tions of  science. 

After  what  has  already  been  said,  it  is  hardly  necessary 
to  devote  much  space  to  the  detailed  and  articulate  account 
of  the  distinction  betwixt  the  logical  and  intuitional  con- 
sciousness, upon  which  Mr.  Morell  has  evidently  bestowed 
much  labour,  and  to  which  he  attaches  no  small  degree  of 
importance  in  consequence  of  the  part  which  it  is  destined 
to  play  in  his  subse(|uent  speculations.  His  first  observa- 
tion is,  that  "  the  knowledge  we  obtain  by  the  logical  con- 
sciousness is  representative  and  indirect,  while  that  which 
we  obtain  by  the  intuitional  consciousness  is  presentative  and 
immediate. ^^  This  is  the  fundamental  difference  of  the  two 
complements  of  faculties.  Intuition,  or,  as  in  consequence 
of  the  ambiguity  and  vagueness  of  that  term,  we  should 
prefer  to  call  it.  Presentation,  embraces  all  our  powers  of 
original  knowledge.      Through  it  we  are  furnished   with 


124         STANDARD    AND   NATURE   OF    RELIGION.       [Sect.  II. 

whatsoever  simple  ideas  we  possess ;  it  is  the  beginning  of 
our  intellectual  strength.  The  logical  consciousness,  on 
the  other  hand,  embraces  all  our  powers  of  representative 
knowledge;  it  builds  the  fabric  of  science  from  the  mate- 
rials presentatively  given;  it  comprehends  all  the  processes 
of  thought  which  the  mind  is  led  to  carry  on  in  consequence 
of  the  impulse  received  in  presentation.  If  Mr.  ]Morell 
had  consistently  adhered  to  this  fundamental  distinction, 
and  admitted  no  differences  but  what  might  naturally  be 
referred  to  it,  he  would  have  been  saved  from  much  need- 
less confusion,  perplexity  and  self-contradiction. 

His  second  observation  is,  that  "the  knowledge  we  obtain 
by  the  logical  consciousness  is  reflective;  that  which  we 
obtain  by  the  intuitional  consciousness  is  spontaneous." 
This  distinction,  we  confess,  has  struck  us  with  amazement. 
In  the  first  place,  upon  Mr.  Morell's  theory  of  the  soul, 
spontaneity  is  the  indispensable  condition  of  all  intelligence; 
it  is  of  the  very  essence — substance — substratum,  of  mind. 
Reflection,  therefore,  is  not  something  distinct  from,  it  is 
only  a,  form  of,  spontaneity.  "The  power  of  the  will,"  he 
tells  us,  "operates  through  all  the  region  of  man's  sponta- 
neous life,"  "our  activity  is  equally  voluntary  and  equally 
moral  in  its  whole  aspect."  In  the  next  place,  upon  any 
just  view  of  the  subject,  what  we  are  authorized  to  affirm 
is,  that  all  reflective  knowledge  is  representative,  but  not 
that  all  representative  knowledge  is  reflective.  The  two 
propositions  are  by  no  means  convertible.  Reflection  is 
nothing  but  attention  to  the  phenomena  of  mind.  It  is 
the  observation — if  you  please,  the  study — of  what  passes 
within.  "The  peculiar  phenomena  of  philosophy,"  says 
one^  who  has  insisted  most  largely  upon  the  spontaneous 
and  reflective  aspects  of  reason,  "are  those  of  the  other 
world,  which  every  man  bears  within  himself,  and  which 
he  perceives  by  the  aid  of  the  inward  light  which  is  called 
consciousness,  as  he  perceives  the  former  by  the  senses. 
The  phenomena  of  the  inward  world  appear  and  disappear 
1  Cousin,  Frag.  Phil.,  Pref. 


Sect.  II.]      RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CON.SIDERED.    125 

SO  rapidly  that  consciousness  jjerceives  them  and  loses  sight 
of  them  almost  at  the  same  time.  It  is  not  then  sufficient 
to  observe  them  transiently,  and  while  they  are  passing 
over  that  changing  scene;  we  must  retain  them  as  long  as 
possible  by  attention.  "VVe  may  do  even  still  more.  We 
may  call  up  a  phenomenon  from  the  bosom  of  the  night 
into  which  it  has  vanished,  summon  it  again  to  memory, 
and  reproduce  it  in  our  minds  for  the  sake  of  contemplat- 
ing it  at  our  ease;  we  may  recall  one  part  of  it  rather  than 
another,  leave  the  latter  in  the  shade,  so  as  to  bring  the 
former  into  view,  vary  the  aspects  in  order  to  go  through 
them  all  and  to  embrace  every  side  of  the  object;  this  is  the 
office  of  reflection.'''  Reflection  is  to  psychology  what  obser- 
vation and  experiment  are  to  physics.  Now  to  say  that  all 
our  representative  knowledge  depends  upon  attention  to 
the  processes  of  our  own  minds,  that  we  know  only  as  we 
take  cognizance  of  the  laws  and  operations  of  our  faculties, 
is  too  ridiculous  for  serious  refutation.  Even  Mr.  Morell 
starts  back  from  the  bouncing  absurdity;  and — with  what 
consistency  we  leave  it  to  our  readers  to  determine — reluct- 
antly admits  that  "there  is  evidently  a  sense  in  which  all 
the  faculties,  even  the  logical  consciousness  itself,  may  be 
regarded  as  having  a  spontaneous  movement,  such  as  we 
have  described — a  sense  in  which  we  cast  our  knowledge 
spontaneously  and  unreflectively  into  a  logical  mould."  In 
order  to  ex|;ricate  himself,  however,  from  the  contradiction 
in  which  he  is  involved,  he  invents  another  meaning  for  re- 
flective, in  which  he  makes  it  synonymous  with  ■scientific. 
But  we  do  not  see  that  this  subterfuge  relieves  him.  All 
representative  knowledge  is  surely  not  scientific,  nor  attained 
upon  scientific  principles.  The  elements  of  science  must 
exist  and  be  known  representatively  before  science  itself 
can  be  constructed,  and  reflection  always  presupposes  spon- 
taneous processes  as  the  objects  of  its  attention.  "Without 
spontaneity  there  could  be  no  reflectivity.  There  would  be 
nothing  to  reflect  upon.  Reflection,  therefore,  is  simply  an 
instrument    or    faculty   of    one    species   of    representativo 


126         STANDARD    AND   NATURE   OF    RELIGION.        [Sect.  IT. 

knowledge,  the  organon  through  which  science  is  con- 
structed from  spontaneous  data,  whether  those  data  be  tlie 
spontaneous  facts  of  presentation  or  the  spontaneous  pro- 
cesses of  representation.  All  the  faculties  and  operations 
of  mind  can  be  made  the  objects  of  contemplation  and  of 
study.  If  Mr.  Morel  1,  therefore,  had  said  that  our  focul- 
ties  of  presentation  include  no  power  of  reflection,  that 
this  belonged  to  the  logical  consciousness,  he  would  have 
announced  a  truism,  but  a  truism  about  as  important  in 
reference  to  the  object  he  had  in  view  as  if  he  had  said 
that  memory  and  imagination  belong  to  the  understanding 
and  not  to  intuition. 

His  third  observation  is,  that  "the  knowdedge  we  obtain 
by  the  intuitional  consciousness  is  material,  that  which  we 
gain  by  the  logical  consciousness  is  formal."  Xoav  formal, 
as  opposed  to  material,  amounts  in  our  judgment  to  about 
the  same  thing  as  nothing  in  contrast  to  something.  That 
the  understanding  is  a  complement  of  formal  faculties,  is  a 
proposition  which  we  not  only  are  able  to  comprehend,  but 
fully  believe;  that  the  knowledge  we  obtain  by  means  of 
these  faculties  is  formal,  is  a  proposition  which  we  frankly 
confess  transcends  our  powers  of  thought :  a  form  without 
something  to  which  it  is  attached  passes  our  comprehension. 
The  matter  of  knowledge  means,  if  it  means  anything,  the 
object  known.  Now  in  intuition  there  is  but  a  single  object, 
which  is  apprehended  in  itself  and  as  really  existing;  in 
the  logical  consciousness  there  is  a  double  object — the  act 
of  the  mind  representing  wdiat  is  immediately  and  present- 
atively  known,  and  the  thing  represented,  which  is  me- 
diately and  remotely  known.  The  matter,  therefore,  both 
in  intuition  and  the  logical  consciousness,  is  ultimately  the 
same ;  it  is  only  differently  related  to  the  mind, — in  the  one 
case  it  stands  before  us  face  to  face ;  in  the  other  case  it 
stands  before  us  through  the  forms  of  the  understanding. 
Hence  it  is  sheer  nonsense  to  speak  of  the  logical  conscious- 
ness as  matferless,  which  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  it 
knotcs,  but  knows  nothing,     Mr.  Morell,  though  expressing 


Sect.  IL]     RELIGION    PSVCHOLOGICALLY   CONSIDERED.    127 

great  admiration  of  Sir  William  Hamilton's  theory,  in 
which  we  heartily  unite  with  him,  departs  from  it  precisely 
in  the  points  in  which  it  is  absolutely  fatal  to  idealism. 

His  fourth  observation  is,  that  "  the  logical  consciousness 
tends  to  separation  (analysis),  the  intuitional  consciousness 
tends  to  unity  (synthesis)."  Analysis  and  synthesis,  in  the 
proper  acceptation  of  the  terms,  are  both  expressive  of 
purely  logical  processes,  the  one  being  the  reverse  of  the 
other.  The  idea  of  a  whole  is  a  logical  conception,  imply- 
ing the  relation  of  parts,  and  presupposing  both  analysis 
and  synthesis  as  the  condition  of  its  being  framed.  The 
induction  of  Aristotle,  for  example,  is  a  synthesis;  the  de- 
duction, an  analysis.  Presentation  may  give  us  things  in 
the  lump  or  mass — a  dead  unity;  but  the  separation  and 
subsequent  recomposition  of  parts  are  offices  which  belong 
exclusively  to  the  understanding.  Mr.  Morell  has  ad- 
mitted as  much:^  "Knowing,"  says  he,  "as  we  do  too  well, 
that  the  intuitions  we  obtain  of  truth  in  its  concrete  unity 
are  not  perfect,  we  seek  to  restore  and  verify  that  truth  by 
analysis — t.  e.,  by  separating  it  into  its  parts,  viewing  each  of 
those  parts  abstractedly  by  itself,  and  finding  out  their 
relative  consistency,  so  as  to  put  them  together,  by  a  logical 
and  reflective  construction,  into  a  systematic  and  formal 
whole.  Hence  the  impulse  to  know  the  truth  aright  gives 
perpetual  vitality  and  activity  to  the  law  by  which  our  spon- 
taneous and  intuitional  life  passes  over  into  the  logical  and 
reflective.  Logical  reasoning  is  the  result  of  human  imper- 
fection struggling  after  intellectual  restoration."  This  is  well 
and  sensibly  said;  and  as  it  is  a  clear  concession  that  the 
logical  consciousness  tends  to  unity — that  the  very  end  of  its 
analysis  is  an  adequate  synthesis — we  cannot  but  marvel  that 
either  of  these  functions  should  have  been  ascribed  to  intui- 
tion. Kant's  reason,  accordingly,  which  aimed  at  an  all- 
comprehensive  unity  of  existence,  is  simply  the  understand- 
ing moving  in  a  higher  sphere,  and  its  regulative  ideas 
nothing  but  the  categories  under  a  new  name  and  translated 
1  Page  74. 


128         STANDARD   AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.        [SiCCT.  II. 

to  a  different  province.  There  is  no  distinction,  according 
to  him,  between  the  powers  themselves  or  the  modes  of  their 
operation;  they  are  conversant  about  different  objects — ■ 
reason  being  to  the  conceptions  of  the  understanding  what 
the  understanding  is  to  the  intuitions  of  sense.  Kant,  too, 
made  his  reason  seek  after  its  darling  unity  or  totality  of 
being,  through  the  same  processes  of  generalization  by 
which  the  understanding  reaches  its  lower  unities  and 
separate  totalities  in  the  various  departments  of  science. 

The  synthetic  judgments  of  Kant,  upon  which  Mr.  Mo- 
rell  seems  to  have  shaped  his  conceptions  of  synthesis,  are 
not  instances  of  synthesis  at  all.  They  are  amplifications 
or  extensions  of  our  knowledge — they  are  new  materials 
added  to  the  existing  stock,  and  are  either  presentative  or 
mediate  according  to  the  circumstances  under  which  they 
are  made.  The  discovery  of  new  qualities  in  substances  is, 
of  course,  presentative;  but  what  he  denominates  synthetic 
judgments  a  priori  involve  only  simple  beliefs,  the  object 
of  the  belief  being  unknown,  as  in  the  case  of  substance, 
or  an  indirect  and  representative  knowledge  of  the  object 
as  given  in  its  relations  to  the  things  which  spontaneously 
suggest  it.  In  all  cases  in  which  the  ultimate  object  known 
is  mediated  and  represented,  in  virtue  of  the  essential  con- 
stitution of  the  mind,  upon  occasions  in  which  other  objects 
are  the  immediate  data  of  consciousness,  the  process  belongs, 
according  to  the  fundamental  distinction  of  our  author,  to 
the  logical  and  not  the  intuitional  consciousness:  in  these 
cases  there  is  a  law  of  belief,  necessary  and  indestructible, 
which  authenticates  the  premises  of  a  syllogism,  conducting 
us  logically,  not  presentatively,  from  what  is  given  in  ex- 
perience to  what  experience  is  incapable  of  compassing,  and 
wdiich,  therefore,  cannot  be  immediately  known.  We  grant 
that  such  judgments  are  intuitive — the  grounds  of  belief 
are  in  the  very  structure  of  the  soul,  they  involve  primary 
and  incomprehensible  cognitions;  but  the  objective  realities 
apprehended  in  virtue  of  these  beliefs  are  not  themselves 
directly  given  in  consciousness.     They  are  conceptions  of 


Sect.  II.]      EELIGIOX    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.    129 

the  mind  necessitated  as  vicarious  of  real  existence.  The 
conclusion  of  such  a  syllogism  is  not  the  simple  assertory 
judgment  of  presentative  intuition,  Something  is,  but  the 
imperative  and  necessary  declaration  of  representative  in- 
tuition, Something  must  be;  it  is  not  expressed  by  the 
formula,  Something  is,  because  it  is  actually  apprehended  in 
itself  and  as  existing,  but.  Something  is,  because  the  mind 
is  incapable  of  conceiving  that  it  is  not.  The  mind  does  not 
so  much  affirm  the  reality  of  existence  as  deny  the  impos- 
sibility of  non-existence.  This  is  the  nature  of  the  synthesis 
in  that  class  of  judgments  to  which  Mr.  Morell  has  referred ; 
and  how  it  differs  from  what  all  the  world  has  been  accus- 
tomed to  regard  as  the  logical  process  involved  in  a  posteriori 
reasoning,  we  leave  it  to  the  Rationalists  to  determine. 

Mr.  Morell's  fifth  note  of  distinction  is,  that  "the  logical 
consciousness  is  individual;  the  intuitional  consciousness 
is  generic."  That  is,  if  we  understand  our  author,  the 
truths  about  which  the  logical  consciousness  is  conversant 
depend,  in  no  degree,  for  the  confirmation  of  their  certainty, 
upon  the  common  consent  of  mankind,  while  the  truths 
about  which  the  intuitional  consciousness  is  conversant  are 
to  be  received  in  consequence  of  the  universal  testimony  of 
the  race. 

"We  all  feel  conscious,"  says  he,  "that  there  are  certain  points  of 
truth  respecting  which  we  can  appeal  to  our  own  individual  under- 
standing with  unerring  certainty.  No  amount  of  contradiction,  for 
example,  no  weight  of  opposing  testimony  from  others,  could  ever 
shake  our  belief  in  the  definitions  and  deductions  of  mathematical 
science  or  the  conclusions  of  a  purely  logical  syllogism.  On  the  other 
hand,  we  are  equally  conscious,  upon  due  consideration,  that  there  are 
truths  respecting  which  we  distrust  our  individual  judgment,  and 
gain  certainty  in  admitting  them  only  from  the  concun-ing  testimony 
of  other  minds.  (Of  this  nature,  for  example,  are  the  main  points  of 
moral  and  religious  truth. )  Hence  it  appears  evident  that  there  is 
within  us  both  an  individual  and  a  generic  element ;  and  that  answer- 
ing to  them  there  are  truths  for  which  we  may  appeal  to  the  individual 
reason,  and  truths  for  which  we  must  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  man- 
kind as  a  whole."  ^ 

1  Page  70. 
Vot..  III.— 9 


130         STANDARD    AND    NATURE   OF    RELIGION.        [Sect.  II. 

He  then  goes  on  to  observe  that  "The  ground  of  this  twofold  ele- 
ment in  our  constitution,  and  the  reconciliation  of  the  respective 
claims  of  the  individual  reason  and  the  common  sense  of  humanity, 
is  easily  explained  when  we  take  into  account  the  distinction  which 
we  have  been  developing  between  the  logical  and  the  intuitional  con- 
sciousness. It  will  be  readily  seen,  upon  a  little  consideration,  that 
the  logical  consciousness  is  stamped  with  a  perfect  individualism— the 
intuitional  consciousness  with  an  equally  universal  or  generic  character. 
The  logical  consciousness,  as  we  have  shown,  is  formal ;  and  it  is  in 
those  branches  of  knowledge  which  turn  upon  formal  definitions, 
distinctions  and  deductions  (such  as  mathematics  or  logic)  that  we 
feel  the  most  perfect  trust  in  the  certainty  of  our  individual  conclu- 
sions. The  understanding,  in  fact,  is  framed  so  as  to  act  on  certain 
principles,  which  we  may  term  lav-s  of  thonghf,  and  whatever  know- 
ledge depends  upon  the  simple  application  of  these  laws,  is  as  certain 
and  infallible  as  human  nature  can  possibly  make  it.  The  laws  of 
thought  (or,  in  other  words,  the  logical  understanding)  present  a 
fixed  element  in  every  individual  man,  so  that  the  testimony  of  one 
sound  mind,  in  this  respect,  is  as  good  as  a  thousand.  Were  not  the 
forms  of  reasoning,  indeed,  alike  for  all,  there  could  no  longer  be  any 
certain  communication  between  man  and  man.  The  intuitional  con- 
sciousness, on  the  other  hand,  is  not  formal,  but  material ;  and  in 
gazing  upon  the  actual  elements  of  knowledge,  our  perception  of  their 
truth  in  all  its  fullness  just  depends  upon  the  extent  to  which  the  in- 
tuitive faculty  is  awakened  and  matured.  The  sciV»ce  of  music,  for  ex- 
ample, is  absolutely  the  .same  for  every  human  understanding;  but  the 
real  perception  of  harmony,  upon  which  the  science  depends  as  its  ma- 
terial  basis,  turns  entirely  upon  the  extent  to  which  the  direct  sensibil- 
ity for  harmony  is  awakened.  And  so  it  is  with  regard  to  every  other 
subject  which  involves  a  direct  element  of  supersensual  truth.  The  in- 
tensity with  which  we  realize  it  dejiends  upon  the  state  of  our  iufuifi'on'd 
consciousness,  so  far,  at  least,  as  the  subject  in  question  is  concerned. 
Here  there  are  no  fixed  and  uniform  laws  of  intellection,  as  in  the 
logical  region,  but  a  progressive  intensity  from  the  weakest  up  to 
the  strongest  power  of  spiritual  vision  or  of  intellectual  sensibility."^ 

We  shall  need  no  apology  to  our  readers  for  these  long 
extracts,  when  they  reflect  that  the  distinction  in  (question 
plays  a  very  prominent  part  in  the  author's  subsequent 
speculations,  especially  in  relation  to  the  origin  and  develop- 
ment of  the  religious  life  and  the  foundations  and  criterion 
of  religious  certitude.  The  whole  force  of  the  argument 
1  Pages  71 ,  72. 


Sect.  II.]     RELIGION    rSYCHOLOGICALLY   CONSIDERED.     131 

for  that  species  of  Realism  which  is  involved  in  the 
modern  doctrine  of  progress,  and  which  Leroux  has  .so 
eloquently  expounded  and  the  Socialists  have  so  coarselv 
practised,  is  here  presented.  The  individual  is  nothing, 
humanity  is  everything.  The  genus  man  is  not  a  logical 
abstraction,  not  a  second  intention,  but  a  real,  substantive 
entity;  and  mankind  is  not  the  collection  of  all  the  indi- 
viduals of  the  human  race,  but  something  which,  though 
inseparable,  is  yet  distinct,  and  to  which  each  is  indebted 
for  his  human  character.  Something  of  this  sort  seems  to 
be  implied  in  making  intuition  a  generic  element,  in  con- 
tradistinction from  understanding  as  personal  and  indi- 
vidual, and  depending  for  its  perfection,  not  upon  the 
culture  of  the  individual,  but  upon  the  development  of  the 
race.  Something  very  like  it  is  directly  affirmed  when 
our  author  teaches  that 

"  Intuition  being  a  thing  not  formal,  but  material — not  uniform,  but 
varying — not  subject  to  rigid  laws,  but  exposed  to  all  the  variations 
of  association  and  temperament,  being,  in  fact,  the  function  of  liutnan- 
ity^  and  not  of  the  individual  mind — the  only  means  of  getting  at  the 
essential  elements  of  primary  intuitional  truth  is  to  grasp  that  which 
rests  on  the  common  sympathies  of  mankind  in  its  historical  develop- 
ment, after  all  individual  impurities  and  idiosyncracies  have  been 
entirely  stripped  away. ' '  ^ 

But,  bating  the  vein  of  Realism  which  pervades  this  and 
the  other  passages  we  have  quoted,  the  proposition  of  the 
author,  so  far  as  it  has  sense,  is,  that  the  operations  of  the 
understanding  are  as  perfect  in  each  individual  as  in  the 
whole  race  collectively,  and  that  its  deliverances  cannot  be 
affected  by  an  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  mankind — that  what 
it  pronounces  to  be  true  must  be  true  to  us,  though  all  the 
race  should  unite  in  contradicting  it.  We  can  never  be 
assured  of  the  certainty  of  intuitional  truth,  however, 
without  comparing  the  deliverances  of  our  consciousness 
with  the  consciousness  of  other  men;  the  touchstone  of 
certainty  is  universal  consent.  The  understanding,  in  other 
1  Page  73. 


132         STANDARD    AND   NATURE   OP   RELIGION.       [Sect.  II 

words,  vindicates  to  itself  the  absolute  right  of  private 
judgment ;  the  intuition  appeals  to  the  authority  of  catliolic 
tradition.  This  is  the  thesis.  The  arguments  are:  1st. 
That,  in  point  of  fact,  the  most  certain  truths,  those  about 
which  we  feel  it  impossible  to  doubt,  are  the  truths  of  the 
understanding — he  instances  mathematics  and  logic!  The 
example  of  logic  is  unfortunate.  That  science  is  not  even 
yet  perfect.  There  are  sundry  points  upon  which  logicians 
are  not  agreed,  and  others  intimately  connected  with  the 
subject,  to  which  hardly  any  attention  has  been  paid.  The 
Apodictic  Syllogism  has  been  thoroughly  investigated,  but 
will  Mr.  Morell  venture  to  say  the  same  of  the  Inductive? 
Will  he  pretend  that  any  writer  upon  logic  has  kept  steadily 
and  consistently  in  view  its  distinctive  character  as  a  science 
of  forms,  and  never  interpolated  or  corrupted  it  with  con- 
siderations of  matter  ?  As  to  mathematics,  its  conclusions 
are  certain,  and  certain  precisely  because  it  deals  -^ath 
hypothesis  and  not  with  realities.  But  then  it  is  a  pro- 
digious leap  from  the  proposition  that  some  truths  are  cer- 
tain within  the  circle  of  the  understanding,  to  the  proposi- 
tion that  all  truths  peculiar  to  it  are  certain — ^that  because 
it  admits  of  demonstration  at  all,  therefore  it  admits  of 
nothing  but  demonstration.  The  same  process  of  argument 
would  establish  the  same  result  in  regard  to  intuition. 
What  can  be  more  indubitable  to  us  than  our  own  person- 
ality, our  indiscerptible  identity,  the  existence  of  our 
thoughts,  feelings  and  volitions?  "No  amount  of  contra- 
diction, no  weight  of  opposing  testimony  from  others,  could 
ever  shake  our  belief"  in  the  reality  of  the  being  which 
every  man  calls  himself,  or  those  processes  of  intellect  which 
consciousness  distinctly  affirms.  AVhat  human  understand- 
ing can  withhold  its  assent  from  the  great  laws  of  causality, 
substance,  contradiction, and  excluded  middle?  These  are  all 
intuitive  truths — we  receive  them  on  the  naked  deliverance 
of  consciousness;  and  we  can  no  more  deny  them  than  wo 
can  annihilate  ourselves.  Certainty,  therefore,  is  not  pecu- 
liar to  the  undcrstandino:  as  contradistinguished  from  intui- 


Sect.  II.]      RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.    133 

tion.  But,  says  the  author,  some  intuitional  truths — those, 
for  example,  of  morals  and  religion — are  uncertain,  in  so 
far  as  we  depend  upon  the  single  testimony  of  our  own 
minds.  But  are  not  some  logical  truths  uncertain  also  ? 
Is  everything  demonstrative,  reduced  to  apodictic  certainty 
in  the  sciences  of  morals,  government,  politics,  chemistry, 
botany  and  history?  Is  it  not  a  characteristic  of  the  evi- 
dence upon  which  the  ordinary  business  of  life  is  conducted 
that  it  admits  of  every  variety  of  degrees,  from  the  lowest 
presumption  to  the  highest  certainty?  Is  there  no  such 
thing  as  a  calculation  of  chances  ?  and  no  such  thing  as 
being  deceived  by  logical  deductions  ?  The  author  some- 
where tells  us  that  the  "  purely  logical  mind,  though  dis- 
playing great  acuteness,  yet  is  ofttimes  involved  in  a  mere 
empty  play  upon  words,  forms  and  definitions;  making 
endless  divisions  and  setting  up  the  finest  distinctions, 
while  the  real  matter  of  truth  itself  either  escapes  out  of 
these  abstract  moulds,  or  perchance  was  never  in  them."  ^ 
One  would  think,  therefore,  that  it  was  not  so  inflillible 
after  all.  As,  then,  certainty  is  not  restricted  to  the  under- 
standing, nor  the  understanding  to  it,  the  same  ground  of 
appeal,  from  private  judgment  to  the  verdict  of  the  race, 
exists  in  reference  to  Us  deliverances  which  the  author 
postulates  from  the  testimony  of  intuition.  The  argument 
is  valid  for  both  or  neither.  2dly.  His  next  position  is, 
that  the  intuitional  consciousness  is  susceptible  of  improve- 
ment, of  education,  development.  The  logical  conscious- 
ness is  fixed  and  unchanging.  If  we  admit  the  fact,  it  is 
not  so  easy  to  discover  its  pertinency  as  an  argument,  so 
far  as  intuition  is  concerned.  AYe  may  grant  that  if  the 
understanding  is  the  same  in  all  minds,  the  testimony  of 
one  is  as  good  as  the  testimony  of  a  thousand;  but  it  does 
not  appear  that  because  the  degrees  of  intuition  are  dilFercnt 
in  different  minds,  therefore  each  mind  must  appeal  to  all 
others  before  it  can  be  certain  of  its  own  intuitions.  One 
man  may  see  less  than  another,  but  it  does  not  follow  that 
1  Pages  10,  17. 


134         STANDARD   AND    NATURE    OF   RELIGION.        [Sect.  II. 

he  is  dependent  upon  the  testimony  of  that  other  for  the 
assurance  that  he  sees  the  little  that  he  does  see.  We  can- 
not comprehend  why  he  should  not  loiow  that  he  sees  what 
he  sees,  however  little  it  may  be,  as  well  as  others  know 
that  they  see  their  more.  But  it  is  positively  false  that  the 
understanding  is  not  susceptible  of  progress  and  improve- 
ment. The  powers  of  reasoning  and  of  representative 
thought  can  be  developed  and  educated — have  their  germ, 
expansion  and  maturity — as  well  as  the  powers  of  intuition. 
The  laws  of  thought  may  be  fixed,  but  the  capacity  of  ap- 
plying, or  acting  in  obedience  to,  these  laws  is  by  no  means 
fixed.  It  is  a  capacity  which  requires  culture;  and  the 
multiplied  instances  of  bad  reasoning  in  the  world — to  which 
our  author  has  contributed  his  full  proportion — are  so  many 
proofs  that  man  must  be  taught  to  reason  and  to  think,  as 
well  as  to  hiow.  There  is  an  immense  difference  betwixt 
the  logical  consciousness  of  a  Newton  and  of  a  Hottentot, 
betwixt  the  logical  consciousness  of  Newton  at  twelve  and 
Newton  at  fifty.  These  laics  of  thought  are  the  same  to 
all  men,  and  to  the  same  men  at  all  times,  but  the  men 
themselves  are  not  the  same.  If  these  laws  were  always 
faithfully  observed,  error  might  be  avoided ;  but  the  amount 
of  truth  that  should  be  discovered  would  depend  upon  the 
degree  to  which  the  faculties  were  developed,  and  not  upon 
the  laws  which  preserve  them  from  deceit.  But  unfortu- 
nately there  is  a  proneness  to  intellectual  guilt  in  transgress- 
ing the  laws  of  thought,  which  is  as  fruitful  a  source  of 
error  as  defect  of  capacity  is  of  ignorance ;  and  each  is  to 
be  remedied  by  a  proper  course  of  intellectual  culture.  But 
if  the  argument  from  fixed  laws  proves  the  understanding 
to  be  fixed  and  unchanging,  it  may  be  retorted  with  equal 
force  against  the  progressiveness  of  intuition.  It  is  true 
that  Mr.  INIorell  affirms  that  this  form  of  intellection  "  has 
no  fixed  and  uniform  laws ;"  but  this  is  an  error  arising 
ti'om  the  relation  in  which  he  apjirehends  that  the  laws  or 
forms  of  thought  stand  to  representative  cognitions.  They 
arc  the  conditions,  not  the  matter,  of  this  species  of  intel- 


Sect.  II.]      RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.    135 

ligence.  They  are  not  the  things  known,  but  the  means  of 
knowing.  They  solve  the  problem  of  the  possibility  of 
mediate  knowledge.  Now,  corresponding  to  them,  there 
are,  in  all  instances  of  representative  cognition,  conditions 
in  the  thing  known,  which  render  it  capable  of  being  ap- 
prehended by  the  mind.  The  qualities,  phenomena---prop- 
erties  which  make  it  cognizable,  make  it  capable  of  coming 
within  the  sphere  of  consciousness — are  laws  of  intuition  as 
certain  and  fixed  as  the  relations  of  things  to  the  mind. 
In  other  words,  the  adaptations  of  things  to  our  faculties 
are  as  truly  laAvs  of  intuition  as  the  adaptations  of  our 
faculties  to  think  them  are  laws  of  the  logical  consciousness. 
Hence,  if  the  argument  from  the  reality  of  laws  cuts  oiF 
the  understanding  from  an  appeal  to  universal  consent,  it 
cuts  off  intuition  also,  and  we  are  shut  up  to  private  judg- 
ment in  the  one  case  by  the  same  process  which  shuts  us  up 
to  it  in  the  other.  It  is  no  distinction,  consequently,  be- 
twixt the  understanding  and  intuition,  to  say  that  the  one 
is  individual  and  the  other  generic.  They  are  both  equally 
individual,  both  equally  generic;  both  belong  to  evev^ 
man,  and  therefore  to  all  men ;  both  may  subsist  in  dif- 
ferent degrees,  in  different  men,  and  in  the  same  men  at 
different  times ;  and  both  are  consequently  susceptible  of 
education  and  improvement. 

The  truth  is,  ]\Ir.  Morell  has  entirely  mistaken  the  pur- 
pose for  which  philosophers  are  accustomed  to  appeal  from 
private  judgment  to  the  general  voice  of  mankind.  It  is 
not  to  authenticate  the  deliverances  of  intuition — not  to 
certify  us  that  we  see  wdien  we  see  or  know  that  we  know ; 
our  own  consciousness  is  the  only  voucher  which  we  can 
have  in  the  case.  Every  faculty  is  its  own  witness.  In 
the  case  of  the  understanding,  others  may  point  out  fallacies 
and  guard  against  errors,  but  our  02vn  minds  must  perform 
the  process  before  there  is  any  logical  truth  to  us.  In  the 
case  of  intuition,  the  voice  of  mankind  cannot  help  us  if 
we  are  destitute  of  the  power,  or  if  it  is  unawakened,  nor 
add  a  particle  to  the  degree  of  clearness  with  which  we 


136         STANDARD    AND    NATURE    OF    RELIGION.        [Sect.  II. 

apprehend  existences,  nor  to  the  degree  of  certainty  with 
which  we  repose  upon  the  data  of  consciousness.  Others 
may  suggest  the  occasions  upon  which  the  intuitions  shall 
arise  or  indicate  the  hindrances  which  prevent  them  ;  but 
the  intuitions  themselves  are  and  must  be  the  immediate 
grounds  of  belief.  From  the  very  nature  of  the  caise  all 
truth  must  be  individually  apprehended,  though  all  truth 
is  not  necessarily  apprehended  as  individual.  Private 
judgment  is  always  and  on  all  subjects  the  last  appeal. 
Nothing  is  truth  to  us,  whatever  it  may  be  in  itself,  until  it 
is  brought  in  relation  to  our  own  faculties,  and  the  extent 
to  which  they  grasp  it  is  the  sole  measure  of  our  know- 
ledge. However,  there  is  a  question  upon  which  an  appeal 
to  common  consent  is  an  indispensable  means  of  guarding 
against  error,  misapprehension  and  mistake,  and  of  rectify- 
ing inadequate,  false  or  perverted  judgments ;  but  that 
question  happens  to  be  one  which  concerns  directly  the 
operations  of  the  logical  understanding.  It  is  simply 
whether  reflection  exactly  represents  the  spontaneous  move- 
ments of  the  soul.  The  distinction  betwixt  reflection  and 
spontaneity  has  been  ably  and  happily  illustrated  by  Cousin : 

"To  know  without  giving  an  account  of  our  knowledge  to  ourselves ; 
to  know  and  to  give  an  account  of  our  knowledge  to  ourselves — this  is 
the  only  possible  difference  between  man  and  man ;  between  the  peo- 
ple and  the  philosopher.  In  the  one,  reason  is  altogether  spontaneous ; 
it  seizes  at  first  upon  its  objects,  but  without  returning  upon  itself 
and  demanding  an  account  of  its  procedure ;  in  the  other,  reflection 
is  added  to  reason,  but  this  reflection,  in  its  most  profound  investiga- 
tions, cannot  add  to  natural  reason  a  single  element  which  it  does  not 
already  possess  ;  it  can  add  to  it  nothing  but  the  knowledge  of  itself 
Again,  I  say  reflection  well  directed — for  if  it  be  ill  directed  it  does 
not  comprehend  natural  reason  in  all  its  pails ;  it  leaves  out  some 
element,  and  repairs  its  mutilations  only  bj^  arbitrary  inventions. 
First  to  omit,  then  to  invent — this  is  the  common  vice  of  almost  all 
systems  of  philosophy.  The  office  of  philosophy  is  to  reproduce  in 
its  scientific  formulas  the  pure  faith  of  the  human  race — nothing  less 
than  this  faith,  nothing  more  than  this  faith — this  faith  alone,  but 
this  faith  in  all  its  parts."  ^ 

1  Phil.  Frag.,  Pref. 


Sect.  11. ]      RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.    137 

This  is  justly  and  beautifully  said.  It  is  assumed  that 
all  minds  are  essentially  the  same;  and  when  the  question 
is,  What  are  the  phenomena  of  consciousness,  what  are  the 
laws,  faculties  and  constitution  of  the  soul?  this  question 
can  only  be  answered  by  unfolding  the  nature  of  its  spon- 
taneous movements.  In  these  the  constitution  of  the  intel- 
lect is  seen.  But  from  the  fleeting,  delicate  and  intangible 
nature  of  the  phenomena,  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  repro- 
duce them  in  reflection,  and  make  them  the  objects  of 
scientific  study.  It  is  no  easy  thing  to  reconstitute  the  in- 
tellectual life — "to  re-enter,"  in  the  language  of  the  dis- 
tinguished philosopher  just  quoted — "to  re-enter  conscious- 
ness, and  there,  weaned  from  a  systematic  and  exclusive 
spirit,  to  analyze  thought  into  its  elements,  and  all  its  ele- 
ments, and  to  seek  out  in  it  the  characters,  and  all  the 
characters,  under  which  it  is  at  present  manifested  to  the 
eye  of  consciousness."  This  is  the  office  of  reflection.  As 
the  phenomena  which  it  proposes  to  describe  are  essentially 
the  same  in  all  minds,  every  man  becomes  a  witness  of  the 
truth  or  falsehood  of  the  description.  Common  consent  is 
a  criterion  of  certainty,  because  there  is  little  possibility 
that  all  mankind  should  concur  in  a  false  statement  of  their 
own  intellectual  operations.  It  is  particularly  in  regard  to 
our  original  and  primitive  cognitions  that  this  appeal  to 
the  race  is  accustomed  to  be  made.  One  of  the  acknow- 
ledged peculiarities  Avhich  distinguish  them  is  the  necessity 
of  believing,  and  of  this  necessity  universal  agreement  is 
an  infallible  proof  We  wish  to  know  whether  any  given 
principle  is  a  primary  and  necessary  datum  of  consciousness 
— whether  it  belongs  essentially  to  intelligence;  and  this 
question  is  answered  by  showing  that  it  is  a  characteristic 
of  all  minds.  But  in  all  cases  in  which  reflection  apj)eals 
to  the  testimony  of  the  race,  that  testimony  is  not  regarded 
as  the  immediate  ground  of  faith,  but  as  a  corroborative 
proof  that  we  have  not  fallen  into  error.  It  is  the  deliv- 
erance of  consciousness  which  determines  belief;  and  when 
it  is  found  that  every  other  consciousness  gives  the  same 


138         STANDARD   AND    NATURE   OP    RELIGION.       [Sect.  II. 

deliverance,  we  are  satisfied  that  our  reflection  has  not  been 
partial  or  defective.  But  if  the  voice  of  mankind  is  against 
us,  we  feel  that  we  have  erred  somewhere,  and  consequently 
retrace  our  steps,  analyze  thought  with  greater  minuteness 
and  attention ;  and  thus  make  the  verdict  of  the  race  the 
occasion  of  reflection  being  led  to  correct  itself.  This  is 
the  true  nature  of  the  appeal  which  a  sound  philosophy 
makes  to  the  testimony  of  mankind.  The  question  is,  What 
are  the  phenomena  of  spontaneity?  Reflection  undertakes 
to  answer,  and  the  answer  is  certified  to  be  correct  when  all 
in  whom  these  phenomena  are  found  concur  in  pronouncing 
it  to  be  true.  Each  man  answers  for  himself  from  his  own 
consciousness,  and  the  philosopher  feels  that  there  is  no 
further  occasion  to  review  his  analysis.  He  has  been  led,  for 
example,  to  announce  the  existence  of  the  external  world 
as  an  original  datum  of  consciousness.  He  thinks  he  finds 
in  his  belief  of  it  that  criterion  of  necessity  which  dis- 
tinguishes primitive  cognitions,  but  it  is  so  hard  to  seize 
upon  the  spontaneous  phenomena  of  the  mind  with  cer- 
tainty and  precision  that  he  may  mistake  prejudice,  associa- 
tion or  an  early  judgment  for  an  original  belief.  He 
appeals  to  other  minds;  he  finds  the  belief  to  be  universal; 
he  is  confirmed  consequently  in  regarding  it  as  necessary, 
and  therefore  natural;  and  hence  he  is  satisfied  that  reflec- 
tion has,  in  this  case,  exactly  described  spontaneity.  It 
would  appear,  therefore,  that  instead  of  saying  the  intu- 
itional consciousness  is  generic,  and  the  logical,  individual, 
it  would  be  much  nearer  the  truth  to  assert  that  the  spon- 
taneous consciousness,  in  all  its  operations,  whether  intu- 
itional or  logical,  is  generic,  or  essentially  the  same  in  all 
minds;  and  the  reflective,  individual,  or  modified  by  per- 
sonal and  accidental  peculiarities.  And  this  is  precisely 
the  distinction  which  Cousin  makes.  Reason,  which,  with 
him,  is  synonymous  with  intelligence,  without  regard  to  our 
author's  distinction  of  a  twofi)ld  form,  in  its  spontaneous 
movements  is  impersonal;  it  is  not  mine  nor  yours;  it  belongs 
not  even  to  humanity  itself;  it  is  identical  with  God;  and 


Sect.  II.]      religion    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.     139 

upon  the  ground  tliat  "humanity  as  a  mass  is  spontaneous 
and  not  reflective,"  he  declares  that  "  humanity  is  inspired." 
Reason,  on  the  other  hand,  in  its  reflective  movements, 
when  its  deliverances  are  made  the  object  of  attention, 
analysis  and  study,  is  subjective  and  personal,  or  rather 
appears  to  be  so  from  its  relations  to  reflection,  while  its 
general  relations  to  the  Ego,  in  which  it  has  entered, 
renders  it  liable,  though  in  itself  infallible  and  absolute,  to 
aberrations  and  mistakes.  "Reflection,  doubt  and  skepti- 
cism appertain  to  some  men,"  such  is  his  language ;  "  pure 
apperception  and  spontaneous  faith  appertain  to  all ;  spon- 
taneity is  the  genius  of  humanity,  as  philosophy  is  the 
genius  of  some  men.  In  spontaneity  there  is  scarcely 
any  difference  between  man  and  man.  Doubtless  there 
are  some  natures,  more  or  less  happily  endowed,  in  wliom 
thought  clears  its  way  more  easily,  and  inspiration  mani- 
fests itself  with  more  brightness ;  but,  in  the  end,  though 
with  more  or  less  energy,  thought  devlopes  itself  sponta- 
neously in  all  thinking  beings ;  and  it  is  this  identity  of 
spontaneity,  together  with  the  identity  of  absolute  faith  it 
engenders,  which  constitutes  the  identity  of  human  kind." 
The  distinction  here  indicated  is  just  and  natural,  but  it  is 
very  far  from  the  distinction  signalized  by  our  author. 

His  sixth  and  final  observation,  that  "the  logical  con- 
sciousness is  fixed  through  all  ages,  the  intuitional  con- 
sciousness 'progressive,^^  is  but  a  consequence  of  his  positions 
which  we  have  just  been  discussing.  We  need  only  detain 
the  reader  to  remark  that  the  author  has  evidently  con- 
founded the  progress  or  education  of  the  faculties  with  the 
progress  and  improvement  of  society.  The  probability  is, 
that  among  any  cultivated  people  the  degree  to  which  mind 
is  developed  is  not  essentially  ditferent  in  one  age  from  what 
it  is  in  another.  The  thinkers  of  the  ])resent  generation, 
for  example,  have  no  greater  capacity  of  thought  than  the 
Greek  philosophers,  the  Schoolmen,  or  the  philosophers  and 
divines  of  the  sixteenth,  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centu- 
ries.   The  present  age  may  know  more,  in  consequence  of  the 


140         STANDARD    AND    NATURE   OF    RELIGION.       [Sect.  IL 

labours  of  those  that  have  preceded;  but  as  its  greater 
amount  of-  knowledge,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case, 
involves  no  greater  amount  of  effort,  and  as  it  is  healthful 
exercise,  and  not  the  number  or  variety  of  objects  that 
elicit  it,  which  developes  the  mind,  society  may  be  in  ad- 
vance in  point  of  knowledge — the  standard  of  general 
intelligence  may  be  higher — while  yet  the  standard  of  in- 
tellectual vigour  and  maturity  may  be  essentially  the  same. 
The  tyro  now  begins  where  Newton  left  off,  but  it  does 
not  follow  that  because  he  begins  there  he  has  the  capacities 
or  intellectual  strength  of  Newton.  All  generations,  men- 
tally considered,  are  very  much  upon  a  level.  Every  man 
has  to  pass  through  the  same  periods  of  infancy,  childhood 
and  youth ;  but  in  reference  to  the  objects  which  occupy 
attention,  each  successive  age  may  profit  by  the  labours  of 
its  predecessors,  and  thus  make  superior  attainments  in 
knowledge  without  a  corresponding  superiority  of  mental 
intensity  or  power.  The  progress  of  society,  therefore,  is 
not  due,  as  Mr.  Morell  seems  to  intimate,  to  the  progress 
of  intuition ;  it  is  not  that  we  have  better  faculties  than  our 
fathers,  but  that  we  employ  them  under  better  advantages. 
Their  eyes  were  as  good  as  ours,  but  we  stand  upon  a  moun- 
tain. We  need  not  add  that  we  have  no  sympathy  with 
the  mystic  Realism  which  dreams  of  a  destiny  of  humanity 
apart  from  the  destiny  of  the  individuals  who  compose  the 
race — a  destiny  to  which  every  generation  is  working  up, 
and  which  is  yet  to  be  enjoyed  only  by  the  last,  or  by  those 
in  the  last  stage  of  development.  We  can  hardly  compre- 
hend how  that  can  be  a  destiny  of  humanity  in  which  im- 
mense multitudes,  to  whom  that  humanity  belongs,  have  no 
immediate  share,  and  to  which  they  stand  in  no  other  rela- 
tion than  that  of  precursors  and  contributors.  Least  of  all 
do  we  believe  that  any  progressive  development  of  human 
nature  as  it  is  will  ever  conduct  any  individual  to  that  con- 
dition of  excellence  in  which  the  "  whole  sensibilities  of  his 
nature"  are  brought  "  into  harmony  with  the  Divine — with 
the  life  of  God."     This  consummation  requires  a  transfor- 


Sect.  II.]     RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY   CONSIDERED.    141 

mation  as  well  as  education,  renovation  as  Avell  as  progress. 
We  must  be  new  creatures  in  Christ  Jesus  before  Ave  can 
be  partakers  of  a  Divine  nature. 

Having  explained  the  distinctions  betAvixt  the  logical 
and  intuitional  consciousness,  Mr.  Morell  proceeds  to  ex- 
pound their  connection  and  dependence.  He  represents 
"  logical  reasoning  as  the  result  of  human  imperfection 
struggling  after  intellectual  restoration."  The  case  is  this  : 
The  harmony  of  our  nature  Avith  moral,  intellectual  and 
religious  truth  has  been  disturbed  and  deranged,  and  the 
consequence  is  "that  the  poAver  of  intuition  is  at  once 
diminished  and  rendered  uncertain.  The  reality  of  things, 
instead  of  picturing  itself,  as  it  Avere,  upon  the  calm  sur- 
face of  the  soul,  casts  its  reflection  upon  a  mind  disturbed 
by  evil,  by  passion,  by  prejudice,  by  a  thousand  other  in- 
fluences which  distort  the  image,  and  tend  to  eiface  it 
altogether."  To  correct  our  defective  and  imperfect  in- 
tuitions we  resort  to  the  double  processes  of  analysis  and 
synthesis.  We  separate  the  parts,  compare  them  Avith  each 
other,  and,  from  the  perception  of  their  consistencies  and 
adaptations,  reconstruct  our  knowledge  into  a  logical 
whole,  which  shall  more  faithfully  correspond  to  reality 
than  the  original  intuitions  themselves.  Upon  this  re- 
markable statement  Ave  hope  to  be  indulged  in  a  few  obser- 
vations. 

As  logical  or  representative  truth  is  based  upon  and  ne- 
cessarily presupposes  presentative,  it  never  can  be  more  cer- 
tain than  intuition.  Demonstration  is  strictly  an  intuitive 
process.  In  the  pure  mathematics  the  conceptions  inA^olved 
in  the  definitions  which  are  the  subject  matter  of  the 
reasoning  are  not  regarded  as  representative;  they  are  the 
things,  and  the  only  things,  to  Avhich  reference  is  had ;  and 
every  step  in  every  demonstration  is  a  direct  gazing  upon 
some  property  or  content  of  these  conceptions.  As  the 
logical  consciousness  only  reproduces  the  elementary  cogni- 
tions of  intuition,  it  can  add  nothing  to  them;  it  can 
neither  increase  their  intensity,  remove  their  obscurity,  nor 


142         STANDARD    AND    NATURE    OF    RELIGION.        [SECT.  II. 

directly  reduce  them  to  consistency.  It  must  faithfully 
represent  them  just  as  they  are.  Inconsistencies  in  our 
reflective  exhibitions  of  truth  may  indeed  send  us  back  to 
our  original  intuitions  and  make  us  repeat  the  occasions  on 
which  they  are  produced,  so  that  we  may  question  them  with 
more  minuteness  and  attention;  but  it  is  not  the  intuitions 
which  we  suppose  to  be  defective,  but  our  accounts  of  them. 
We  seek  to  correct  the  inadequacies  of  memory  by  the  com- 
pleteness of  consciousness.  If  a  man's  powers  of  intuition, 
therefore,  are  deranged  upon  any  subject,  no  processes  of 
ratiocination  will  cure  him.  Logic  is  neither  eyes  to  the 
blind  nor  ears  to  the  deaf.  And  if  a  man  is  destitute  of 
the  moral  faculty,  reasoning  will  be  utterly  incompetent  to 
put  him  in  possession  of  the  notions  of  right,  duty  and 
obligation;  or  if  his  intuitional  faculties  are  defective  and 
disordered,  he  can  only  reason  upon  the  defective  and  dis- 
torted conceptions  which  faithfully  represent  them.  He 
can  never  have  clearer  notions  till  he  is  furnished  with 
sounder  faculties.  It  is  true  that  logical  exposition  may  be 
the  means  of  aAvakening,  developing  and  maturing  intu- 
itions; but  then  the  logical  expositions  must  come  from 
others  who  have  actually  had  the  intuitions  described,  or 
from  the  God  that  made  us.  They  cannot  come  from  the 
man  to  be  awa-kened.  So  that  his  logical  consciousness 
cannot  stand  to  his  intuitional  in  this  relation  of  a  help. 
We  cannot  comprehend  how  Mr.  Morell,  without  departing 
from  every  principle  which  he  has  previously  laid  down, 
and  upon  which  as  occasion  requires  he  is  not  backward  to 
insist,  should  represent  the  logical  understanding  as  a 
remedy  for  dimness  of  vision.  Did  Adam  have  no  under- 
standing before  the  fall?  Are  the  angels  without  it?  and 
shall  we  drop  it  at  death?  Is  it  an  endowment  vouchsafed 
to  the  race  only  in  consequence  of  the  moral  confusion  and 
disorder  which  have  supervened  from  sin,  and  are  we  to 
look  to  it  as  the  Holy  Spirit  by  which  we  are  to  be  reno- 
vated and  saved? 

The  true  view  of  the  subject  we  apprehend  to  be,  that 


Sect.  II.]     RELIGION    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.    143 

the  understanding  is  designed  not  to  cure  the  disorders  and 
remedy  the  imperfections,  but  to  supplement  the  defects,  of 
the  intuitional  faculties.  It  is  the  complement  of  intuition. 
Finite  and  limited  as  we  are,  presentative  knowledge  can 
extend  but  a  little  way;  and  the  office  of  the  understanding 
is  to  stretch  our  knowledge  beyond  the  circle  of  our  vision. 
We  are  so  constituted  that  what  we  see  shall  be  made  the 
means  of  revealing  more  than  we  see.  Presentation  and 
Representation,  Intuition,  Induction  and  Inference  are  all 
instruments  of  knowing ;  and  by  virtue  of  the  constitution 
they-  describe,  man  is  able  to  penetrate  beyond  the  limits  of 
time  and  space  to  which  consciousness  is  evidently  restricted. 
It  is,  therefore,  distinctly  to  add  to  his  knowledge,  to  com- 
plete his  constitution  as  an  intelligent  creature,  that  God 
has  given  him  understanding.  It  is  true  the  necessity  of 
an  understanding  implies  defect — intuition  is  the  highest 
form  of  knowledge — but  it  is  a  defect  which  attaches  to  all 
finite  creatures.  They  must  either  supplement  intuition  by 
inference,  or  their  knowledge  must  be  limited  in  time  and 
space  to  the  sphere  of  their  personality.  It  belongs  to  the 
omnipresent  God  alone,  as  He  is  uncircumscribed  in  His 
being,  to  embrace  all  things  in  a  single  glance  of  unerring 
intuition.  Creatures,  however  glorious  and  exalted,  from 
the  very  limitation  implied  in  being  creatures,  can  never 
dispense  with  the  faculties  of  mediate  and  representative 
cognition ;  this  is  the  law  of  their  condition ;  and  a  funda- 
mental error  which  pervades  Mr.  Morell's  whole  account 
of  the  understanding  is,  that  it  is  not  a  faculty  of  know- 
ledge. Had  he,  in  this  point,  risen  above  the  philosophy 
of  Kant,  many  of  the  paradoxes  and  inconsistencies  of  his 
treatise  might  have  been  obviously  avoided.  He  professes 
to  be  a  Natural  Realist,  and  as  such  contends,  and  very 
properly  contends,  that  we  have  faculties  by  which  we  can 
immediately  apprehend  existences;  but  his  theory  of  the 
understanding,  instead  of  being  constructed  in  harmony 
with  this  hypothesis,  instead  of  making  it  that  complement 
of  powers  by  which  the  mind  can  represent  to  itself  the 


144         STANDARD    AND   NATURE   OF    RELIGION.       [Sect.  II. 

properties  and  qualities  of  absent  objects,  instead  of  treating 
its  categories  and  forms  as  the  conditions  in  conformity  to 
which  its  representations  shall  be  adequate  and  just,  has  made 
it  the  organ  of  the  rankest  delusions,  of  the  most  contempt- 
ible and  puerile  trifling. 

Our  author  takes  occasion  to  caution  his  readers,  "  in 
the  outset,  against  the  supposition  that  the  distinction" 
which  he  has  elaborately  expanded  between  the  intuitional 
and  logical  consciousness  "  is  anything  at  all  novel  in  the 
history  of  mental  philosophy.  So  far  from  it/'  he  affirms, 
"that  it  is  almost  as  universal  as  philosophy  itself,  -lying 
alike  patent  both  in  ancient  and  modern  speculation."^ 
This  we  cannot  but  regard  as  a  mistake.  Our  acquaint- 
ance with  the  history  of  philosophy  is  small,  but  we  know 
of  no  writer  previously  to  Kant  who  took  precisely  the 
same  views  of  the  nature,  office  and  operations  of  the 
understanding;  and  we  know  of  no  writer  but  Mr.  Morel  1 
who  has  restricted  reason  or  intuition  exclusively  to  the 
faculties  of  presentative  cognition.  It  would  require  more 
space  than  we  can  at  present  devote  to  the  subject  to  dis- 
cuss his  ancient  authorities,  but  we  cannot  forbear  a  word 
upon  his  modern  examples.  To  begin  with  Kant :  we  very 
frankly  confess  that  in  his  Critical  Philosophy  we  never 
could  distinguish  betwixt  the  operations  or  modes  of  action 
which  he  ascribes  to  reason  and  those  which  he  attributes 
to  the  understanding.  They  seem  to  us  to  be  exactly  the 
same  faculty,  or  complement  of  faculties,  employed  about 
different  objects,  and  in  this  opinion  we  are  confirmed  by 
an  authority  which  it  is  seldom  safe  to  contradict.  "  In 
the  Kantian  philosophy,"  says  Sir  William  Hamilton, 
"  both  faculties  perform  the  same  function,  both  seek  the  one 
in  many,  the  idea  {idee)  is  only  the  conception  [begriffe)  sub- 
limated into  the  inconceivable,  reason  only  the  understand- 
ing which  has  overleaped  itself."  Intellect  directed  to  the 
objects  beyond  the  domain  of  experience  is  the  Kantian 
reason  ;  within  the  domain  of  experience,  the  Kantian  under- 
1  Page  27. 


Sect.  II.]     RELIGION   PSYCHOLOGICALLY   CONSIDERED.    145 

standing.  Intellect  in  search  of  scientific  unity  is  under- 
standing; in  search  of  absolute  unity,  the  reason.  Em- 
ployed about  the  finite,  limited,  contingent,  it  is  understand- 
ing ;  employed  about  the  correlatives,  the  absolute,  infinite, 
necessary,  it  is  reason.  Or,  in  one  word,  as  the  faculty  of 
the  conditioned  it  is  understanding;  as  the  faculty  of  the 
unconditioned  it  is  reason.  But  if  the  science  of  contraries 
be  one,  the  faculty  in  each  case  as  an  intellectual  power  must 
be  the  same.  There  is,  accordingly,  a  much  closer  corre- 
spondence between  Mr.  Morell's  logical  consciousness  and 
Kant's  speculative  reason  than  between  Kant's  reason  and 
Mr.  Morell's  intuition ;  and  Mr.  Morell's  intuition,  in  turn, 
is  much  more  analogous  to  Kant's  sensibility  than  to  his 
reason.  Mr.  Morell's  intuition  is  the  presentative  know- 
ledge of  supersensible  realities.  Kant  pronounced  all  such 
knowledge  to  be  a  sheer  delusion.  Mr.  Morell's  intuition 
is  exclusive  of  analysis.  Kant's  reason  reaches  its  highest 
unity  through  processes  of  generalization.  Mr.  Morell's 
intuition  has  no  fixed  and  permanent  laws.  Kant's  reason 
has  its  ideas  as  his  understanding  its  categories.  Between 
Kant's  practical  reason  and  Mr.  Morell's  intuition  there  are 
some  striking  points  of  correspondence,  but  they  are  points  in 
M'hich  Mr.  Morell  is  inconsistent  with  himself.  Both  attrib- 
ute our  firm  conviction  of  the  Divine  existence  and  of  a 
future  life  to  our  spiritual  cravings  and  the  authoritative 
nature  of  conscience ;  but,  in  thus  representing  them  as  a 
want  on  the  one  hand  and  an  implication  on  the  other,  our 
author  abandons  his  fundamental  principle  that  in  intuition 
the  object  reveals  itself. 

Neither  is  Mr.  Morell's  intuition  precisely  the  same  with 
the  principles  of  common  sense  or  the  fundamental  laws  of 
belief  of  the  Scottish  school.  These  were  not  faculties  2^re- 
sentative  of  their  objects,  but  vouchers  of  the  reality  of 
knowledge;  and  as  to  the  Eclectics,  they  make  no  such 
distinction  between  reason  and  understanding  as  that  sig- 
nalized by  Kant,  Coleridge  and  our  author,  but  treat  the 
categories  and  ideas  promiscuously  as  laws  of  reason  or 
Vol.  III.— 10 


146        STANDARD   AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.       [Sect.  II. 

intelligence.  "  The  one  catholic  and  perennial  philosophy, 
notwithstanding  many  schismatic  aberrations/'  is  not  that 
all  objective  jcertainty  depends  upon  the  actual  presentation 
of  its  realities,  and  that  the  understanding  cannot  conduct  us 
beyond  the  circle  of  sensibility,  but  that  all  knowledge  is 
ultimately  founded  on  faith,  and  "the  objective  certainty 
of  science  upon  the  subjective  necessity  of  believing."  If 
Mr.  Morell  had  meant  by  intuition  nothing  more  than  "  the 
complement  of  those  cognitions  or  principles  which  we 
receive  from  nature,  which  all  men  therefore  possess  in 
common,  and  by  which  they  test  the  truth  of  knowledge  and 
the  morality  of  actions,"  or,  if  he  had  defined  it  simply  as 
the  faculty  of  such  principles,  we  should  have  regarded  him 
in  this  matter  beyond  the  reach  of  any  just  exceptions. 
But  this  is  not  his  doctrine. 

The  importance  of  the  points  upon  which  we  have  been 
insisting  will  appear  from  their  application  to  the  great 
problems  of  Keligion.  What  is  God?  What  vouchers 
have  we  for  the  objective  certainty  of  His  being  ?  What  kind 
of  intercourse  can  be  maintained  betwixt  Him  and  His 
creatures  ?  These  are  questions  which  will  be  variously 
answered  according  to  varying  views  of  the  nature  and 
extent  of  human  knowledge,  and  the  offices  and  operations 
of  the  human  faculties.  We  have  already  seen  that,  in 
describing  the  developments  of  the  higher  stages  of  the 
intuitional  consciousness,  Mr.  Moi'ell  has  confounded  the 
intuition  of  a  principle  with  the  presentation  of  an  object, 
representing  our  inference  in  relation  to  the  Divine  exist- 
ence, authenticated  by  the  necessary  law  of  causation,  as  a 
direct  perception  of  the  Deity  Himself.  His  language  in 
many  places  will  bear  the  interpretation  that  our  know- 
ledge of  God  is  intuitive  only  in  so  far  as  it  rests  upon 
original  principles  of  belief;  but  there  are  other  passages 
in  which  he  unquestionably  teaches  that  God  reveals  Him- 
self as  an  immediate  datum  of  consciousness,  and  that  we 
know  Him  in  Himself  precisely  as  we  know  the  phenom- 
ena of  matter  or  the  operations  of  mind.     These  two  sets 


Sect.  II.]     RELIGIOX    rSYCIIOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.    147 


con- 


of  statements  are  really  inconsistent — an  unjustifiable 
fusion  of  intuition  and  presentation — but  it  is  easy  to  see 
how  they  have  arisen  in  the  Rationalistic  school.  The  law 
of  substance  has  been  marvellously  confounded  with  the  law 
of  causality,  and  an  inference  from  an  effect  to  its  cause  has, 
accordingly,  been  treated  as  a  perception  of  the  relation  of 
a  quality  to  a  substance.  The  proof  of  a  cause  has,  in 
other  words,  been  taken  for  the  presentation  of  a  substance, 
on  the  ground  that  the  effect  is  a  phenomenon  which,  as  it 
cannot  exist,  cannot  be  perceived  apart  from  its  substratum  or 
"  fundamental  essence."  To  affirm,  therefore,  in  consistency 
with  these  principles,  that  the  external  world  and  ourselves 
are  a  series  of  effects,  is  simply  to  affirm  that  they  are  a 
series  of  phenomena  which  must  inhere  in  some  common 
substance,  and  of  which  they  are  to  be  regarded  as  the 
manifestations.  "In  my  opinion,"  says  Cousin,  "all  the 
laws  of  thought  may  be  reduced  to  two — namely,  the  law 
of  causality,  and  that  of  substance.  These  are  two  essen- 
tial and  fundamental  laws,  of  which  all  others  are  only 
derivatives,  developed  in  an  order  by  no  means  arbitrary." 
Having  shown  that  these  two  fundamental  laws  of  thought 
are  absolute,  he  proceeds  to  reduce  them  to  identity :  "  An 
absolute  cause  and  an  absolute  substance  are  identical  in 
essence,  since  every  absolute  cause  must  be  substance  in  so 
far  as  it  is  absolute,  and  every  absolute  substance  must  be 
cause  in  order  to  be  able  to  manifest  itself."  To  reduce 
causality  to  substantive  being,  and  effects  to  phenomenal 
manifestations,  is  to  deny  the  possibility  of  a  real  creation. 
Substances  as  such  cannot  be  relative  and  contingent :  to 
make  them  effects  is  to  make  them  phenomena.  There  can, 
therefore,  be  but  one  substance  in  the  universe,  and  all  that 
we  have  been  accustomed  to  regard  as  the  works  of  God  are 
only  developments  to  consciousness  of  the  Divine  Being 
Himself.  The  world  stands  to  Him  in  the  same  relation  in 
which  thought  and  volition  stand  to  our  OAvn  minds.  This 
is  the  necessary  result  of  confounding  causation  with  sub- 
stance, and  yet  this  is  Avhat  Mr.  Morell  has  done,  and  Avhat 


148         STANDARD   AND    NATURE   OF   EELIGIOX.       [Sect.  II, 

his  psychology  absokitely  demanded  to  save  it  from  self- 
contradiction.  At  one  time  we  find  him  ascending,  by  vir- 
tue of  the  law  of  causality,  from  the  finite,  contingent  and 
dependent  to  the  infinite,  necessary,  self-existent,  from  effects 
to  their  causes,  in  the  very  track  of  the  argument  which  he 
affects  to  despise.  He  finds  God,  not  in  Himself,  but  in 
His  creatures.  At  another  time,  "in  loftier  moments  of 
contemplation,"  he  seems  to  stand  upon  the  verge  of  infinity, 
and  to  gaze  upon  "  Being  (substance)  in  its  essence,  its  unity, 
its  self-existent  eternity."  At  one  time  the  great  problem 
of  reason  is  to  discover  the  power  and  wisdom  which  gave 
the  world  its  being  and  impressed  upon  nature  its  laws ;  at 
another  "  to  find  the  one  fundamental  essence  by  which "  all 
things  are  upheld.  At  one  time,  in  a  single  word,  God  is 
contemplated  and  known  as  the  cause,  at  another  as  the 
substance,  of  all  that  exists.  This  conftision  pervades  the 
book,  and  is  constantly  obtruded  upon  us  in  that  offensive 
form  which  makes  the  Deity  nothing  but  the  bond  of  union 
or  the  principle  of  co-existence  to  His  creatures.  This  is 
the  plain  meaning  of  all  that  eternal  cant  about  "  totality 
and  absolute  unity,"  about  the  tendency  of  reason  to  syn- 
thesis, which  is  echoed  and  re-echoed  in  various  forms  with- 
out any  apparent  consciousness  of  its  wickedness,  blasphemy 
and  contradiction.  The  whole  doctrine  of  the  absolute 
which  has  played  so  conspicuous  a  part  in  German  specula- 
tions turns  upon  this  blunder.  To  get  at  the  cause  of  all 
things  is  only  to  get  at  the  substance  in  which  all  inhere 
and  coexist — to  get  at  Being  in  its  necessary  and  funda- 
mental laws,  which,  of  course,  would  give  all  its  manifes- 
tations. 

Those  who  wish  to  see  what  this  philosophy  has  achieved 
in  other  hands  will  do  well  to  consult  the  pages  of  Mr.  INIo- 
rell  on  the  systems  of  Fichte,  Schelling  and  Hegel;  and 
those  who  would  appreciate  its  pretensions  to  truth  and 
consistency  would  do  well  to  study  the  masterly  article  of 
Sir  William  Hamilton  upon  the  Eclectic  Scheme  of  Cousin. 
We  shall  add  here  only  a  few  reflections,  that  the  reader 


Sect.  II.]     EELIGIOX    PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.    149 

may  distinctly  see  where  Mr.  jNlorell's  principles  would  con- 
duct him. 

In  the  first  place,  Deity,  as  absolute  substance,  is  neces- 
sarily impersonal.  The  idea  of  individuality,  or  of  .separate 
and  distinct  existence,  is  indispensable  to  our  conception  of 
a  Person.  But  absolute  Being  has  no  distinct  existence ;  to 
distinguish  is  to  condition  it — to  make  it  a  being,  and  a 
being  of  such  and  such  qualities,  which  is  to  destroy  its 
absoluteness.  In  the  next  place,  it  obviously  follows  that 
everything  is  God  and  God  is  everything.  As  absolute 
being  He  is  the  generative  principle  of  being  in  all  that 
exists.  He  is  their  essence — that  upon  which  their  esse 
depends,  and  without  which  they  Avould  be  mere  shadows 
and  illusions.  Just  as  far  as  anything  really  exists,  just  so 
far  it  is  God.  He  is  the  formal  and  distinguishing  ingre- 
dient of  its  nature  as  an  entity  or  existence. 

Hence,  it  deserves  further  to  be  remarked  that  there  can 
be  no  such  thing  as  real  causation.  The  law  of  substance 
is  made  to  abrogate  the  law  of  causality.  The  absolute  is 
not  a  productive,  but  a  constitutive,  principle — a  fundamental 
element  or  condition,  but  not  an  effi,cient  of  existence.  It  is 
no  more  a  cause  in  the  sense  in  which  the  constitution  of 
our  nature  determines  us  to  apprehend  the  relation,  than 
body  is  the  cause  of  extension,  mind  the  cause  of  thought, 
or  the  sun  the  cause  of  light.  Absolute  beauty,  for  ex- 
ample, is  not  the  creator,  but  the  essential  element,  of  all 
particular  beauties ;  absolute  right  is  not  the  producer,  but 
an  indispensable  constituent,  of  all  particular  rectitude ; 
and  absolute  Being  is  not  the  maker,  but  the  necessary  in- 
gredient or  characteristic  principle,  of  every  particular 
being.  There  is  then  no  creation,  no  maker  of  heaven 
and  earth,  no  father  of  the  spirits,  nor  former  of  the  bodies 
of  men.  There  is  simply  ens  reale,  from  which  what  we 
call  creatures  emanate,  as  its  properties  and  adjuncts.  This 
doctrine  is  unblushingly  avowed  by  the  great  master  of  the 
Eclectic  School ;  and  it  is  deeply  imbedded  in  everything 
that  Mr.  Morell  has  said  of  the  relations  of  the  Deitv  to 


150         STANDARD   AND   NATURE    OF   RELIGION.        [Sect.  II. 

the  world.  We  need  not  say  that  a  philosophy  which  con- 
tradicts a  fundamental  principle  of  belief,  which  denies  the 
law  of  causality,  or,  what  is  the  same,  absorbs  it  in  another 
and  a  different  law,  is  self-condemned. 

We  affirm  finally  that  every  form  in  which  the  philos- 
ophy of  the  Absolute  ever  has  been,  and,  we  venture  to 
say,  ever  can  be,  proposed,  necessarily  leads  to  nihilism — 
the  absolute  annihilation  of  the  possibility  of  knowledge. 
The  very  notion  of  the  absolute  is  inconsisteiit  with  the 
conditions  of  knowledge.  Merging  all  difference  in  iden- 
tity, and  all  variety  in  unity,  it  is  evidently  incompatible 
with  the  nature  of  consciousness,  which  evidently  implies, 
as  Cousin  has  lucidly  explained,  plurality  and  difference. 
The  only  consistent  hypothesis  is  the  intellectual  intuition 
of  Schelling,  "in  which  there  exists  no  distinction  of  sub- 
ject and  object — no  contrast  of  knowledge  and  existence ; 
all  difference  is  lost  in  absolute  indifference — all  plurality  in 
absolute  unity.  The  intuition  itself,  reason  and  the  absolute 
are  identical."  But  consistency  is  here  evidently  maintained 
at  the  sacrifice  of  the  possibility  of  thought.  Fiehte,  though 
his  confidence  in  his  system  was  so  strong  that  he  staked 
his  everlasting  salvation  on  the  truth  of  even  its  subordinate 
features,  yet  confesses  that  it  was,  after  all,  a  mere  tissue  of 
delusions. 

"The  sum- total,"  saj^s  he,  "is  this:  there  is  absoluteb'  nothing 
permanent,  either  without  me  or  within  me,  but  only  an  unceasing 
change.  I  know  absolutely  nothing  of  any  existence,  not  even  my 
own.  I,  raj-self,  know  nothing,  and  am  nothing.  Images  there  are — 
they  constitute  all  that  apparently  exists,  and  what  they  know  of  them- 
selves is  after  the  manner  of  images ;  images  that  pass  and  vanish 
without  there  being  aught  to  witness  their  transition ;  that  consist 
in  fact  of  the  images  of  images — without  significance  and  without  an 
aim.  I,  myself,  am  one  of  these  images ;  nay  I  am  not  even  thus 
much,  but  only  a  confused  image  of  images.  All  reality  is  converted 
into  a  marvellous  dream,  without  a  life  to  dream  of  and  without  a 
mind  to  dream — into  a  dream  made  up  only  of  a  di-eam  of  itself 
Perception  is  a  dream — thought,  the  source  of  all  the  existence  and 
all  the  reality  which  I  imagine  to  m.yself  of  my  existence,  of  my  power, 
of  my  destination,  is  the  dream  of  that  dream." 


Sect.  II.]     EELIGION   PSYCHOLOGICALLY    CONSIDERED.    151 

Melancholy  confession !  God  grant  that  it  may  serve 
as  an  awful  warning  to  those  who,  with  presumptuous 
confidence,  would  plunge  into  the  fathomless  abyss  of  the 
Absolute ! 

The  certainty  of  God's  existence  rests  upon  no  such  flimsy 
speculations.  Through  the  indestructible  principles  which 
are  not  merely,  as  Kant  supposed,  regulative  laws  of  thought, 
but  guarantees  for  the  objective  realities  to  which  they  con- 
duct us,  we  have  an  assurance  for  the  Divine  existence  which 
cannot  be  gainsayed  without  making  our  nature  a  lie. 
Reason  conducts  us  to  God — its  laws  vouch  for  His  exist- 
ence, but  it  is  in  the  way  of  inference  from  what  passes 
around  us  and  within  ns.  He  has  so  constituted  the  human 
mind  that  all  nature  shall  be  a  witness  for  Himself  Every- 
thing is  inexplicable  until  He  is  acknowledged.  But  we 
know  Him,  and  can  know  Him,  only  mediately.  We  spell 
out  the  syllables  which  record  His  Name  as  they  are  found 
in  earth,  in  heaven  and  in  ourselves.  What  is  presentatively 
given  is  not  the  Almighty,  but  His  works;  but  reason, 
from  the  very  nature  of  its  laws,  cannot  apprehend  His 
works  without  the  irresistible  conviction  that  He  is.  The 
principles  are  intuitive  by  which  we  ascend  from  nature  to 
its  Author,  but  the  substance  of  the  Godhead  never  stands 
before  us  face  to  face  as  an  object  of  vision,  though  these 
deductions  of  reason  are  felt  to  have  an  objective  validity 
independent  of  the  subjective  necessity  of  believing. 

Let  it  be  granted  that  our  knowledge  of  God  is  mediate, 
and  that  the  understanding  is  a  faculty  of  cognition,  and 
the  whole  groundwork  of  Mr.  Morell's  system  is  swept 
away.  All  that  remains  to  prove  that  the  logical  conscious- 
ness may  be  an  adequate  medium  of  revelation  and  a  com- 
petent instrument  of  religion  is  to  indicate  the  fact  that 
through  its  representative  conceptions  it  can  reproduce  every 
emotion  which  the  original  intuitions  could  excite.  The 
copy  can  awaken  all  the  feelings  of  the  original.  Vivid 
description  may  produce  the  effects  of  vision.  Tlie  peculiar 
emotions  of  religion,  consequently,  are  not  dependent  upon 


152         STANDARD   AND   NATURE   OF  RELIGION.       [Sect.  II. 

the  power  of  gazing  upon  its  actual  realities.  If  they  can 
be  embodied  so  as  to  produce  what  Lord  Karnes  denominates 
ideal  presence,  the  result  may  be  the  same  as  if  the  presence 
were  real.  To  this  principle  painting,  jjoetry  and  oratory 
owe  their  power  to  stir  the  depths  of  the  human  soul — to 
rule  like  a  wizard  the  world  of  the  heart,  to  call  up  its 
sunshine  or  draw  down  its  showers. 

The  remaining  portions  of  the  book  we  must  reserve  for 
another  opportunity. 


SECTION    III. 

REVELATION  AND  RELIGION. 

THE  Apostle  Paul,  writing  to  the  Romans,  says,  "So 
then  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  Word 
of  God."  In  these  words  he  first  states  in  what  the  essence 
of  a  sinner's  religion  consists,  and  then  how  it  is  produced. 
The  essence  of  this  religion,  as  plainly  appears  from  the 
context,  he  makes  to  be  Faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  "  If  thou 
shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt 
believe  in  thine  heart  that  God  hath  raised  him  from  the 
dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved.  For  with  the  heart  man  believeth 
unto  righteousness,  and  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made 
unto  salvation."  As  if  anxious  to  avoid  the  imputation  of 
novelty,  and  to  show  that  he  taught  nothing  but  what  was 
contained  in  the  lively  Oracles  of  God,  the  Apostle  appeals 
in  confirmation  of  his  doctrine  to  the  testimony  of  an  ancient 
Prophet.  "  For  the  Scripture  saith,  Whosoever  believeth  on 
him  shall  not  be  ashamed."  I  must  call  your  especial  atten- 
tion to  the  manner  in  which  Paul  applies  this  passage  to  the 
case  of  the  Gentiles,  as  it  furnishes  a  strong  incidental  proof 
of  his  profound  conviction  that  the  very  words  of  Scripture 
were  the  words  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  knew  nothing  of 
an  inspiration  of  the  Spirit  as  contradistinguished  from  an 
inspiration  of  the  letter,  and  consequently  does  not  scruple 
to  build  an  argument  upon  a  single  exj)ression,  when  that 
expression  is  the  language  of  a  Prophet.  Because  the  Scrip- 
ture saith  whosoever,  without  limitation  or  restriction,  the 
Apostle  concludes  that  there  is  no  diflerence  between  the 
Jew  and  the  Greek.  This  term  equally  includes  them  both, 
and  he  accordingly  has  no  hesitation  in  drawing  the  infer- 


154         STANDARD   AND    NATURE   OP   RELIGION.     [Sect.  III. 

euce  that  "  the  same  Lord  over  all  is  rich  unto  all  that  call 
upon  him."  It  is  to  be  received  as  an  universal  ijroposition, 
true  in  all  cases  and  under  all  circumstances,  and  that  upon 
the  force  of  a  single  term,  that  "  Whosoever  shall  call  upon 
the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved." 

The  religion  of  a  sinner  being  compendiously  embl'aced 
by  the  Apostle  under  the  head  of  Faith,  the  question  arises. 
How  is  this  faith  produced  ?  The  successive  steps  of  the 
process  are  first  expanded  in  a  series  of  forcible  and  pungent 
interrogatories,  and  then  recapitulated  in  this  solemn  lan- 
guage :  "  How  then  shall  they  call  on  Him  in  whom  they 
have  not  believed  ?  and  how  shall  they  believe  in  Him  of 
whom  they  have  not  heard?  and  how  shall  they  hear  with- 
out a  preacher  ?  and  how  shall  they  preach  except  they  be 
sent  ?"  That  is,  in  order  to  the  existence  of  fiiith  there  must 
be  a  Divine  testimony.  The  AYord  of  God  is  its  standard 
and  measure.  That  this  testimony  may  produce  faith,  it 
must  be  known — it  must  be  imparted  from  without ;  it  is 
not  the  offspring  of  our  own  cogitations,  nor  the  product  of 
our  own  thoughts ;  it  comes  to  us  in  the  form  of  a  report. 
But  in  order  that  it  may  be  proposed  and  communicated, 
there  must  be  persons  commissioned  for  the  purpose ;  there 
must  be  Apostles — men,  in  other  words,  to  whom  the  Word 
of  the  Lord  is  entrusted.  This  then  is  the  Divine  arrange- 
ment. A  class  of  men  is  to  be  put  in  charge  of  that  which 
is  to  be  the  object  of  faith;  this  is  Inspiration.  They 
report  to  others  the  Word  of  the  Lord;  this  is  Revelation; 
and  this  report  is  the  medium  through  which  a  saving  Faith 
is  engendered.  "So  then  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and 
hearing  by  the  AVord  of  God."  Inspiration  gives  rise  to 
revelation,  revelation  to  faith,  and  faith  is  the  sum  and  sub- 
stance of  religion.  If  you  ask  the  Apostle  what  it  is  to  be 
inspired,  he  briefly  answers  that  it  is  to  be  sent  with  a  mes- 
sage from  God ;  if  you  ask  him  what  he  means  by  revela- 
tion, he  as  promptly  replies  that  it  is  the  Divine  message 
delivered ;  and  if  you  inquire  of  liim  in  regard  to  man's 
duty,  it  is,  compendiously,  to  believe  the  report.     This  is  his 


Sect.  III.]  REVELATION    AND    RELIGION.  155 

philosophy  of  religion :  God  sends ;  Apostles  report ;  men 
believe. 

But,  simple  and  consistent  as  it  seems,  this  account,  Ave 
are  told,  is  in  palpable  contradiction  to  the  very  nature  of 
religion  and  the  fundamental  laws  of  the  human  mind.  We 
are  accordingly  furnished  with  a  theory  drawn  from  a  deeper 
philosophy  than  Prophets  or  Apostles  ever  knew,  which, 
under  the  pretence  of  emancipating  us  from  the  bondage  of 
the  letter  and  giving  free  scojie  to  the  liberty  of  the  spirit, 
has  left  us  nothing  of  Christianity  but  the  name.  A  reve- 
lation which  reports  the  testimony  of  God,  and  the  faith 
which  believes  it  because  it  is  His  testimony,  are  both  dis- 
carded as  psychological  absurdities ;  and  as  to  the  idea  that 
any  men  or  set  of  men  have  ever  been  commissioned  to  speak 
to  others  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  to  challenge  submis- 
sion to  their  message  on  the  ground  of  the  Divine  authority 
which  attests  it,  this  is  scouted  as  "  of  all  our  vanities  the 
motliest,  the  merest  word  that  ever  fooled  the  ear  from  out 
the  Schoolman's  jargon."  The  issues  involved  in  this  con- 
troversy are  momentous.  It  is  not  a  question  about  words 
and  names ;  it  is  a  question  which  involves  the  very  founda- 
tions of  Christianity.  These  insidious  efforts  to  undermine 
the  authority  of  the  Bible  and  to  remove  an  external,  infal- 
lible standard  of  faith,  however  disguised  in  the  covert  of 
philosophy,  are  prompted  by  a  deej)  and  inveterate  opposi- 
tion to  the  doctrines  of  the  Cross.  The  design  is  to  destroy 
the  religion,  and  hence  the  fury  of  the  efforts  against  the 
citadel  in  which  it  is  lodged.  It  is  not  the  casket,  but  the 
jewel,  that  has  raised  all  this  clamour  of  rancorous  opposi- 
tion ;  and  when  men  cry,  Down  with  the  Bible !  the  real 
meaning  of  their  rage  is,  Away  with  Jesus  and  His  Cross ! 
Vain  is  all  their  opposition,  vain  the  combination  of  philos- 
ophers and  sophists ;  He  that  sitteth  in  the  heavens  shall 
laugh,  the  Lord  shall  have  them  in  derision ;  He  hath  set 
His  Son  upon  the  holy  hill  of  Zion,  and  there  he  must  reign 
until  He  has  put  down  all  His  enemies  under  His  feet. 

The  new  theory  of  religion — I  call  it  new,  not  because 


156         STANDARD    AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.     [Sect.  III. 

any  of  its  fundamental  principles  are  new,  they  are  only  old 
errors  in  a  new  dress,  but  because  it  is  supported  upon  new 
grounds — this  new  theory  of  religion  I  propose  briefly  to 
consider  in  contrast  with  the  testimony  of  Paul,  so  that  it 
may  be  seen  to  be  untenable,  even  on  the  principles  of  the 
metaphysical  philosophy  behind  which  it  has  entrenched 
itself. 

I.  I  shall  begin  with  the  new  theory  of  Revelation,  as 
the  discussion  of  that  will  lead  me  to  say  all  that  I  deem 
important  upon  the  present  occasion  on  the  nature  and 
essence  of  religion. 

"  The  idea  of  revelation,"  we  are  told  by  the  writer  whom 
I  have  in  view,  "  always  implies  a  process  by  which  know- 
ledge, in  some  form  or  other,  is  communicated  to  an  intelli- 
gent being.  For  a  revelation  at  all  to  exist  there  must  be 
an  intelligent  being,  on  the  one  hand,  adapted  to  receive  it, 
and  there  must  be,  on  the  other  hand,  a  process  by  which 
this  same  intelligent  being  becomes  cognizant  of  certain 
facts  or  ideas.  Supj)ress  either  of  these  conditions,  and  no 
revelation  can  exist.  The  preaching  of  an  angel  would  be 
no  revelation  to  an  idiot — a  Bible  in  Chinese  would  offer 
none  to  a  European.  In  the  former  case,  there  is  no  intel- 
ligence capable  of  receiving  the  ideas  conveyed ;  in  the  lat- 
ter case,  the  process  of  conveyance  renders  the  whole  thing 
practically  a  nonentity  by  allowing  no  idea  whatever  to 
reach  the  mind.  We  may  say  then,  in  a  few  words,  that  a 
revelation  always  indicates  a  mode  of  intelligence."  ^ 

From  this  passage  we  see  the  necessity  of  being  on  our 
guard  against  the  ambiguity  of  words.  It  is  perhaps  unfor- 
tunate that  a  term  which  in  its  strict  and  proper  acceptation 
applies  only  to  a  part  of  the  contents  of  the  Sacred  Volume, 
should  have  been,  as  in  the  language  of  theology  it  con- 
fessedly has  been,  applied  to  the  whole  canon  of  faith.  The 
Scriptures  themselves  denominate  nothing  revelations  but 
those  supernatural  mysteries  which  lie  beyond  the  province 
of  reason,  which  eye  hath  not  seen  nor  ear  heard,  and  which 
1  Morell's  PliU.  Eel.,  pp.  123,  124,  Eng.  Ed. 


Sect.  III.]  REVELATION   AND    RELIGION.  157 

could  not  be  known  independently  of  the  supernatural  teach- 
ing of  the  Spirit.  When  they  speak  of  themselves  as  a  whole 
they  are  designated  simply  by  some  title  which  indicates 
that  they  are  the  Word  of  God.  This  is  the  phrase  which 
Paul  employs  in  writing  to  the  Romans,  and  employs  in 
the  same  sense  in  which  popular  usage  applies  revelation. 

It  is  little  worthy  of  the  dignity  and  candour  of  philoso- 
phy to  construct  an  argument  upon  a  verbal  quibble.  Reve- 
lation as  synonymous  with  the  standard  of  faith  and  as  cov- 
ering the  whole  contents  of  Scripture,  without  reference  to 
the  distinction  of  the  natural  and  supernatural,  is  not  so 
much  a  mode  of  intelligence  as  a  ground  of  belief.  Its 
office  is  not  subjective,  but  objective.  It  is  not  in  the  mind, 
but  to  the  mind.  The  simplest  notion  that  we  can  form  of 
it  is  that  it  is  a  message  from  God.  Its  work  is  done  when  it 
reports  what  He  says.  What  distinguishes  revealed  truth  from 
every  other  species  of  truth  is  not  its  nature,  not  its  object- 
matter,  but  the  immediate  ground  of  credibility.  It  is  the 
measure  of  faith ;  and  the  argument  of  faith  is.  Thus  saith 
the  Lord.  The  characteristic  of  revelatibn,  in  the  generic 
sense  in  which  it  is  applied  to  the  canon,  is,  that  it  contains, 
or  rather  is,  a  Divine  testimony,  and  this  testimony  must  be 
the  immediate  ground  of  belief — I  say  the  immediate  ground 
of  belief,  because  the  ultimate  and  final  basis  of  truth  in 
every  case  is  the  faithfulness  of  God  in  the  structure  of  our 
mental  constitution.  We  believe  the  reports  of  our  senses 
and  the  data  of  consciousness  because  the  constitution  of 
our  nature  is  such  that  we  cannot  do  otherwise ;  but  when 
we  are  asked  how  we  know  that  our  faculties  do  not  deceive 
us,  we  can  only  appeal  to  the  moral  character  of  Him  who 
has  wrought  these  laws  of  belief  into  tlie  very  texture  of 
our  frames.  But  in  these  cases  the  immediate  grounds  of 
belief  are  found  in  our  faculties  themselves.  It  is  ourselves 
that  we  first  trust,  and  not  God.  Such  truths  may  be  dis- 
coveries, but  they  are  not  revelations ;  they  may  be  clear, 
distinct,  unquestionable,  but  they  are  not  Divine.  We 
receive  them  either  because  they  are  self-evident  and  need 


158         STANDARD   AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.      [Sect.  III. 

no  proof,  or  because  we  are  able  to  prove  them,  and  not 
because  God  appears  as  a  witness  in  their  behalf.  Revela- 
tion and  a  Divine  testimony  are  one  and  the  same  thing. 
How  this  testimony  shall  be  received  and  what  eiFects  it 
shall  produce,  whether  men  shall  understand  it  or  not, 
whether  it  shall  really  awaken  any  ideas  in  their  mind.s  or 
create  any  emotions  in  their  hearts, — these  are  matters  which, 
however  important  in  themselves,  do  not  at  all  affect  the 
question  whether  it  is  really  a  message  from  God.  It  may 
be  admitted  that  a  revelation  to  an  idiot  or  in  an  unknown 
tongue,  where  no  adequate  provision  was  made  for  remov- 
ing the  impediments  to  an  apprehension  of  its  contents, 
would  be  very  senseless  and  absurd.  But  such  a  message 
being  supposed,  the  question  whether  it  is  a  revelation  is  one 
thing,  and  whether  it  is  wise  and  judicious  is  another ;  and 
in  a  philosophical  discussion  things  that  are  separate  ought 
to  be  kept  distinct. 

This  adroit  play  upon  the  ambiguity  of  the  term  revela- 
tion, in  which  it  is  made  to  be  a  mode  of  intelligence  rather 
than  the  measure  of  a  Divine  faith,  is  the  corner-stone  upon 
which  the  author's  whole  theory  of  the  nature  and  grounds 
of  religious  truth  is  erected. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  give  a  detailed  account  of  the  process 
by  which  revelation  is  distinguished;  it  will  be  enough  to 
seize  upon  his  fundamental  principle  and  expose  its  fallacy. 
His  doctrine  is  briefly  this,  that  revelation  is  a  species  of 
intuition  in  which  things  authenticate  themselves.  The 
realities  of  religion  are  brought  directly  into  contact  with 
the  mind  and  vouch  for  their  own  existence,  just  as  the 
material  world  and  the  forms  of  beauty  and  of  virtue  are 
their  own  witnesses.  We  kno\v  the  things  that  are  freely 
given  us  of  God,  not  by  the  testimony  of  His  Spirit,  but 
the  immediate  consciousness  of  their  presence.  Revelation 
is  a  spiritual  perception  in  which  we  see  the  invisible,  and 
stand  face  to  face  with  the  infinite  and  eternal.  Its  objects 
are  presented  to  us  by  God,  but  in  no  other  sense  than  He 
presents  the  objects  of  all  other  knowledge.     The  rocks, 


Sect.  III.]  REVELATION    AND    RELIGION.  159 

mountains,  caves  and  valleys  of  the  material  world,  the 
heavens  above  us  and  the  earth  beneath,  are  as  really  and 
truly  a  revelation  from  Him  and  in  the  same  essential  sense 
as  the  Person,  offices  and  work  of  His  own  eternal  Son. 
Faith  is  vision,  and  the  actual  presentation  of  its  objects  its 
only  standard  and  measure.  In  conformity  with  these 
views  inspiration  is  represented  as  a  subjective  process  in 
which  God  adapts  the  mind  to  the  objects  presented  in  reve- 
lation. It  is  a  clearing  of  the  spiritual  sight,  a  strengthen- 
ing of  the  spiritual  eye,  "  an  especial  influence  wrought  upon 
the  faculties  of  the  subject,  by  virtue  of  which  he  is  able  to 
grasp  these  realities  in  their  perfect  fullness  and  integrity. 
Eevelation  and  Inspiration,  then,  indicate,"  we  are  told, 
"  one  united  process,  the  result  of  which  upon  the  human 
mind  is  to  produce  a  state  of  spiritual  intuition,  whose  phe- 
nomena are  so  extraordinary  that  we  at  once  separate  the 
agency  by  which  they  are  produced  from  any  of  the  ordi- 
nary principles  of  human  development.  And  yet  this 
agency  is  applied  in  perfect  consistency  with  the  laws  and 
natural  operations  of  our  spiritual  nature.  Inspiration  does 
not  imply  anything  generically  new  in  the  actual  processes 
of  the  human  mind.  It  does  not  involve  any  form  of  intel- 
ligence essentially  different  from  what  we  already  possess. 
It  indicates  rather  the  elevation  of  the  religious  conscious- 
ness, and  with  it,  of  course,  the  power  of  spiritual  vision, 
to  a  degree  of  intensity  peculiar  to  the  individuals  thus 
highly  favoured  by  God."  ^ 

This  might  be  taken  as  a  caricature  of  the  work  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  effectual  calling  of  God's  children,  were  it  not 
that  the  author  has  taken  special  pains  to  show  that  there 
can  be  no  other  kind  of  inspiration,  without  contradiction 
to  the  laws  of  mind,  but  that  which  he  has  described.  His 
inspiration  is,  in  many  respects,  analogous  to  the  saving 
oj)erations  of  the  Spirit.  It  enaWes  its  subject  to  under- 
stand revelation;  brings  him  into  harmony  with  Divine 
truth;  subdues  the  passions;  represses  the  influence  of 
1  Morell,  p.  151. 


160         STANDARD    AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.      [Sect.  III. 

sense  and  sanctifies  the  heart.  It  evidently  stands  in  the 
same  relation  to  his  revelation  that  the  regenerating  and 
enlightening  influences  of  grace  sustain  to  the  Scriptures 
of  God.  But  an  inspiration  which  gives  rise  to  a  revela- 
tion, which  commits  a  message  from  the  Holy  One  to  the 
hands  of  men,  which  ends  in  a  Divine  testimony  as  the 
standard  and  measure  of  a  Divine  faith,  he  can  by  no 
means  abide.  The  objects  of  religion  must  authenticate 
themselves.  The  consequence  is,  that  every  man,  in  so  far 
as  he  is  religious,  is  inspired,  and  "  every  man  has  his  doc- 
trine and  his  psalm."  The  inconsistency  of  these  views 
with  the  uniform  and  pervading  testimony  of  the  Scrip- 
tures must  strike  the  dullest  apprehension.  Paul,  as  we 
saw,  solemnly  declares  that  faith  comes  by  hearing ;  this 
new  philosophy  affirms  that  it  comes  by  vision.  Paul  de- 
clares that  the  immediate  ground  of  belief  is  the  testimony 
of  God ;  this  new  philosophy,  that  it  is  found  in  the  things 
themselves.  Paul  declares  that  inspiration  imparts  to  men 
a  Divine  message;  this  new  philosophy,  that  it  purges  the 
mind.  Paul  declares  that  it  is  restricted  to  Apostles ;  the 
new  philosophy,  that  it  is  the  property  of  the  race. 

All  these  enormous  and  palpable  contradictions  of  Scrip- 
ture have  sprung  from  the  gratuitous  assumption  that 
revelation  is  a  mode  of  intelligence,  a  process  of  our  own 
minds,  and  not  an  extraordinary  message  of  God.  Taking 
it  for  granted  that  it  is  nothing  more  than  an  exercise  of 
our  natural  faculties  in  some  form  of  cognition,  the  author 
proceeds  to  conclude  from  the  laws  of  the  disjunctive  syl- 
logism that  it  must  be  intuitive.  He  acknowledges  but  two 
modes  of  intelligence,  and  to  one  or  the  other  of  these  it 
must  belong.  It  cannot  be  a  process  of  ratiocination;  no 
rules  of  logic,  no  powers  of  combination  and  analysis,  no 
force  of  words  nor  ingenuity  of  inference  could  ever  have 
evolved  the  scheme  of  redemption  or  the  sublime  mysteries 
of  the  Cross.  There  are  elements  embraced  in  religion 
which  it  never  could  have  entered  the  heart  of  man  to  con- 
ceive.    It  introduces  us,  in  a  high  and  sublime  sense,  into  a 


Sect.  III.]  T^EVELATIOX    AND    RELICxIOX.  161 

new  world,  exalts  us  to  new  conceptions,  aiul  unveils  to  us 
glories  beyond  the  suggestion  of  mortal  thought.  It  bears 
upon  its  face  impressions  of  originality  and  novelty  which 
remove  it  beyond  the  sphere  of  the  logical  understanding, 
and  carry  convincing  evidence  that,  however  it  came,  it 
never  could  have  been  excogitated.  This  reasoning  has  a 
show  of  plausibility.  It  labours,  however,  under  one  fatal 
defect — the  disjunction  can  be  easily  retorted.  It  is  as  easy 
to  show,  on  the  one  hand,  that  Christianity,  as  a  whole, 
never  could  have  been  intuitive,  as  it  is  to  prove,  on  the 
other,  that  it  never  could  have  been  the  offspring  of  logic. 
It  involves  relations  and  dependencies  which  could  only 
have  been  adjusted  by  powers  of  combination.  It  is  not  a 
single  concrete  reality,  like  a  man,  a  mountain  or  a  tree, 
but  a  connected  scheme  of  events,  every  one  of  them  con- 
tingent in  relation  to  our  knowledge,  and  concatenated  into 
a  system  which  cannot  be  grasped  without  calling  into  play 
all  the  powers  of  the  logical  understanding.  It  is  a  system 
which  pre-eminently  requires  reasoning — a  comprehensive 
view  of  great  moral  principles  as  they  are  involved  and 
illustrated  in  a  wonderful  series  of  facts.  What  then?  It 
cannot  be  intuitional,  it  cannot  be  logical.  One  would 
think  that  this  obvious  reductio  ad  absurdum  would  have 
been  sufficient  to  open  the  mind  of  a  philasopher  to  the 
fallacy  of  his  fundamental  principle.  No  wonder  that  sub- 
jective religionists  hate  logic;  it  makes  sad  havoc  with 
their  finest  speculations. 

The  notion  that  revelation  is  a  mode  of  intelligence, 
which,  in  plainer  terms,  means  that  it  a  faculty  of  the 
human  mind,  is  the  parent  or  child — it  is  hard  to  say 
which  is  the  first  in  order  of  nature — of  a  still  more  se- 
rious mistake  in  reference  to  the  nature  of  religious  trnth 
and  the  ^peculiarities  of  Christian  exjjerience.  This  double 
misconception  has  concealed  from  the  author  the  palpable 
incongruities  of  his  system,  and  induced  him  to  believe  that 
the  doctrines  of  grace  might  be  pressed  to  the  support  of 
an  hypothesis  which,  legitimately  carried  out,  reduces  them 
Vol.  III.— 11 


162        STANDARD   AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.      [Sect.  III. 

to  nonsense.  To  refute  his  scheme  is  simply  to  expose 
these  errors.  He  has  made  religious  truth  essentially  dif- 
ferent from  what  it  is,  and  therefore  has  had  to  postulate  a 
faculty  in  order  to  cognize  it.  He  has  made  the  religious 
life  essentially  different  from  what  it  is,  and  therefore  has 
had  to  fit  the  work  of  the  Spirit  to  his  assumptions. 

1.  His  first  error  is  a  fundamental  misconception  of  the 
nature  of  religious  truth.  To  say  nothing  of  his  chapters 
upon  the  peculiar  essence  of  religion  in  general  and  Chris- 
tianity in  particular,  it  is  evident,  from  the  manner  in  which 
he  attempts  to  set  aside  the  popular  notion  of  revelation, 
that  he  looks  upon  religion  as  embracing  a  province  of 
things,  a  class  of  realities,  or,  if  you  prefer  an  expression 
more  in  accordance  with  the  theory  of  Locke,  a  collection 
of  simple  ideas,  entirely  distinct  from  every  other  depart- 
ment of  knowledge,  every  other  sphere  of  existence.  It  is 
a  world  to  itself.  And  as  all  primitive  conceptions  must 
come  through  some  original  faculty  to  which  they  are 
adapted,  there  must  be  a  peculiar  faculty  of  religion  analo- 
gous to  taste  or  the  sensibility  to  beauty,  and  to  conscience 
or  the  sensibility  to  right. 

"Imagine  yom^self,"  says  the  author,  "by  definitions  and 
explications  addressed  to  the  understanding,  attempting  to 
make  a  blind  mau,  who  had  never  gazed  upon  nature,  com- 
prehend the  exquisite  beauties  in  form,  hue  and  graceful 
motion,  presented  to  the  eye  by  a  summer's  landscape.  It 
is  needless  to  say  that  all  your  descriptions  would  fall  infi- 
nitely short  of  the  actual  reality — that  they  would  not 
convey  the  hundredth  part  of  what  one  minute's  gaze  upon 
the  scene  would  spontaneously  present — that  he  could  only 
conceive,  indeed,  of  any  portion  of  it  by  analogies  taken 
from  the  other  senses.  The  reason  of  this  is  that  he  knows 
the  thing  only  formally  by  logical  exposition ;  he  has  never 
had  the  proper  experiences,  never  the  direct  sense-percep- 
tions, which  are  absolutely  necessary  to  a  full  realization 
of  it.  And  so  it  is,  mutatis  mutandis,  with  religious  truth. 
You   may  expound,  and   define,  and  argue  upon  the   high 


Sect.  III.]  REVELATION    AND    RELIGION.  163 

tlienics  which  Christianity  presents  to  the  contemphition  ; 
but  unless  a  man  have  the  intuitions  on  which  all  mere 
verbal  exposition  must  be  grounded,  there  is  no  revelation 
of  the  spiritual  reality  to  his  mind,  and  there  can  be  no 
clearer  perception  of  the  actual  truth  than  there  is  to  the 
blind  man  of  the  vision  of  beauty  which  lies  veiled  in 
darkness  around  him." 

Improvement  in  religious  knowledge,  accordingly,  is  rep- 
resented as  consisting  in  the  education  and  development 
of  the  religious  faculty,  which,  at  every  stage  of  its  growth, 
enlarges  the  sphere  of  our  actual  experience  and  expands 
the  horizon  of  our  mental  vision.  Religion,  like  taste, 
presupposes  an  original  susceptibility  to  a  particular  class 
of  ideas.  It  may  be  cultivated,  ennobled  and  refined ;  but 
the  mind  can  never  get  beyond  the  fundamental  data 
which  are  given  in  this  form  of  consciousness.  All  acces- 
sions to  its  knowledge  are  only  new  experiences;  the  foculty 
is  the  parent  of  all  the  truth  we  can  know.  Reflection 
may  construct  a  science,  presenting  these  data  in  their 
proper  order,  and  showing  their  connections,  dependencies 
and  consequences,  but  to  him  who  is  destitute  of  the  data 
the  science  is  unmeaning  and  nugatory.  All  theology,  con- 
sequently, is  nothing  but  the  product  of  analysis  and 
synthesis  from  the  materials  which  are  given  in  experience. 
As  the  science  of  optics  to  the  blind  and  the  science  of 
music  to  the  deaf  can  be  little  more  than  jargon,  so  any 
representative  exhibitions  of  Divine  truth  to  one  whose 
religious  faculty  has  not  yet  been  awakened  would  be  worse 
than  idle. 

We  meet  this  M'hole  train  of  reasoning  by  a  bold  and 
confident  denial  of  its  fundamental  assumption.  Religion, 
in  the  sense  asserted,  is  not  a  simple  thing — it  is  not  a 
collection  of  ideas  at  all  analogous  to  the  sensible  properties 
of  matter  or  the  original  fiiculties  of  the  mind.  Neither  is 
it  exclusively  confined  to  any  one  department  of  our  nature, 
so  that  we  can  say  that  this  is  the  religious  sense,  as  we 
affirm  of   conscience  that  it  is  a  moral  sense,  or  of   taste 


1G4         STANDARD    AND    NATrRF,    OF    RELIGIOX.       [SiXT.  Ill, 

that  it  is  the  sense  of  the  beautiful  and  fiiir.  I  do  not  say 
that  religion  involves  no  simple  ideas  or  primitive  elements 
of  thought;  this  would  be  an  absurdity.  But  I  do  say  that 
there  are  no  intuitions  peculiar  to  religion,  requiring  a 
separate  and  distinct  faculty  in  order  to  their  cognition, 
and  which  could  not  and  would  not  liave  been  developed 
in  the  ordinary  exercise  of  our  powers.  There  are  no 
things,  no  objects  of  thought  which,  as  such,  are  simply 
and  exclusively  religious — which  exist,  in  other  words,  only 
in  so  far  as  they  are  religious.  There  are  no  simple  ideas 
characteristic  of  revelation,  and  Avhich,  without  it,  would 
never  have  found  a  lodgment  in  the  mind.  On  the  con- 
trary, our  faculties,  in  the  sphere  of  their  ordinary  exercise, 
furnish  us  witli  all  the  materials  out  of  which  the  whole 
fabric  of  revealed  truth  is  constructed.  Every  stone  in  the 
sacred  and  august  temple  is  hewn  from  the  quarry  of  com- 
mon experience.  The  Bible  contains  not  a  single  simple 
idea  which,  considered  merely  as  an  element  of  thought, 
may  not  be  found  in  the  consciousness  of  every  human 
being  who  has  ever  exercised  his  wits.  It  is  not  the  ele- 
ments, but  the  combinations  of  these  elements,  that  give  to 
revelation  its  peculiarity  and  grandeur.  It  is  not  the 
stones,  but  the  order  and  arrangement  of  the  stones,  that 
constitute  the  building.  Revelation  deals  pre-eminently 
with  complex  ideas,  particularly  with  what  Locke  denomi- 
nates mixed  modes,  which,  as  they  are  mainly  retained  in 
the  mind  by  the  force  of  words,  would  seem  to  refer  revela- 
tion to  the  category  from  which  our  author  excludes  it — of 
verbal  exposition. 

But  the  fallacy  of  the  notion  of  a  peculiar  religious  fac- 
ulty, with  its  characteristic  cognitions,  Avill  yet  more  fully 
appear  from  a  brief  investigation  of  the  nature  of  religion 
itself.  What,  then,  is  religion  ?  In  whatever  its  peculiar 
essence  may  be  said  to  consist,  one  thing  is  universally  con- 
ceded— that  it  grows  out  of  the  relations  betwixt  moral  and 
intelligent  creatures  and  their  God.     Take  away  God,  and 


( 


Sect.  III.]  REVELATION    AXD    RELIGION.  165 

llicrc  can  be  no  relioion,  because  there  is  no  object  upon 
which  it  can  fasten.  Take  away  moral  and  intelligent  crea- 
tures, and  there  can  be  no  religion,  because  there  are  no  sub- 
jects in  whom  it  can  inhere.  Prosecute  the  analysis,  and  it 
will  be  found  that  the  relations  out  of  which  religion  arises 
are  those  that  are  involved  in  moral  government.  "  Thev 
that  come  unto  God  must  believe  that  He  is,  and  that  He  is 
the  rewarder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  Him."  It  is  not 
a  little  remarkable  that  this  conception  of  moral  govern- 
ment, without  w^liich  religion  is  a  term  destitute  of  meaning, 
has  wholly  escaped  the  notice  of  our  profound  philosopher, 
and  we  need  not  be  astonished  that  a  system  which  dis- 
penses with  obedience  and  law  has  no  manner  of  use  for  the 
Bible.  The  essence  of  religion,  as  a  subjective  phenomenon, 
is  made  to  consist  in  a  state  of  feeling  which  a  dog  may  have 
in  common  with  his  master.  There  is  certainly  nothing- 
moral  in  a  naked  sense  of  dependence.  Men  may  feel  -that 
ihey  are  in  the  hands  of  God,  and  hate  his  power.  Devils 
feel  it,  and  blaspheme  although  they  tremble. 

Having  settled  the  principle  that  religion  grows  out  of 
the  relations  involved  in  moral  government,  we  are  pre- 
pared for  a  detailed  consideration  of  its  objective  elements. 
These  are  obvioiisly  embraced  in  a  history  of  the  Divine 
administration — an  account  of  the  law  to  which  obedience 
is  exacted,  of  the  rewards  to  which  it  shall  be  entitled,  and 
of  the  doom  to  which  transgressors  shall  be  assigned.  It  is 
a  history,  in  other  words,  of  God's  providence  as  unfolded  in 
His  dealings  with  the  race — an  account  of  God's  purposes  as 
already,  or  yet  to  be,  developed  in  events. 

Subjectively  considered,  it  indicates  the  attitude  in  wliich 
men  should  stand  to  the  Divine  administration — a  generic 
condition  of  the  soul  prompting  to  exercises  in  unison  with 
tlie  requisitions  of  the  law.  It  extends  not  to  a  single  fac- 
ulty or  po^ver,  but  to  the  whole  man ;  it  is  the  loyalty  of  a 
subject  to  his  j)rince — of  a  dutiful  son  to  the  father  that 
begat  him.  God,  the  just  and  righteous  Ruler;  man,  tlie 
sul)ject,  whether  obedient  or  rebellious, — these  arc  tlie  terms 


166  STANDARD    AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.     [Sect.  III. 

that  must  be  given  to  understand  religion.  It  is  mainly- 
conversant  with  relations,  and  those  exclusively  moral. 

As  it  treats  of  the  progress  and  conduct  of  a  government, 
any  account  of  it  must,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  to  a 
large  degree  historical.  Revelation  in  regard  to  it  must  be 
analogous  to  an  explanation  of  the  laws,  constitution  and 
history  of  a  kingdom  in  past  ages  or  in  a  distant  quarter 
of  the  earth. 

These  things  being  so,  no  other  intuitions  are  needed  in 
order  to  grasp  the  truths  of  religion  but  those  which  are 
evolved  by  our  circumstances  in  the  world.  The  great  idea 
of  moral  government  is  not  only  a  primary  dictum,  in  its 
germ,  of  every  human  consciousness,  but  is  daily  and  hourly 
exemplified  in  more  or  less  completeness  by  the  relations  of 
the  Family,  the  School,  the  State.  It  meets  us  everywhere, 
and  men  can  never  efface  it  from  their  souls  until  they  have 
extinguished  the  light  of  conscience.  Truth,  justice,  benev- 
olence, mercy — all  those  moral  attributes  which  adorn  the 
character  of  God,  and  which  are  required  to  be  found  in 
us — demand  nothing  more  than  the  ordinary  operations  of 
our  moral  nature  in  order  to  be  in  some  measure  under- 
stood. Revelation  consequently  deals  with  no  new  and 
peculiar  simple  ideas.  It  is  not,  consequently,  a  faculty  or 
mode  of  intelligence.  Conversant  about  relations  and  his- 
torical in  its  form,  it  must  be  a  presentation  to  our  faculties 
of  facts  and  events  involving  combinations  of  simple  ideas 
collected  from  all  quarters — which  can  only  be  done  by 
report.  Philosophy  confirms  the  Apostle  that  faith  comes 
by  hearing. 

But  we  may  go  a  step  fiirther,  and  shoAv  from  a  brief 
recapitulation  of  the  distinctive  doctrines  of  Christianity,  as 
they  are  unfolded  in  the  Scriptures,  that  they  turn  upon 
events  which  could  be  known  only  by  the  testimony  of 
God.  The  Gospel  is  a  history  of  the  conception  and  exe- 
cution of  God's  purposes  of  grace  to  the  fallen  family  of 
man.  That  there  should  exist  such  a  purpose  is,  relatively 
to  liuniau  knowledge,  a  contingent  event.     There  were  no 


Sect.  III.]  REVELATION    AND    RELIGION.  167 

principles  from  which  wc  or  any  creature  could  demonstrate 
it  a  'priori.  How  then  shall  we  know  it  ?  By  intuition  ? 
It  is  one  of  the  deep  things  of  God,  and  none  can  penetrate 
His  counsels  but  His  own  Spirit.  He  must  reveal  it,  or  it 
must  remain  locked  up  in  eternal  secrecy.  The  mediation 
of  Christ,  the  grand  agency  by  which  redemption  has  been 
achieved,  as  actually  interposed,  is  a  history  involving  a 
series  of  events  deriving  all  their  significancy  and  import- 
ance from  relations  that  the  understanding  alone  can  grasp. 
As  God  and  Man  in  one  Person,  as  Prophet,  Priest  and 
King  of  the  Church,  He  performed  and  still  continues  to 
perform  a  work  in  which  what  strikes  the  senses  is  the 
shell ;  the  substance  lies  within.  How  shall  we  know  that 
He  was  the  federal  head  and  legal  substitute  of  men  ?  This 
was  a  sovereign  and  arbitrary  appointment.  How  shall  we 
know  that  He  bore  our  sins  in  His  own  body  on  the  tree  ? 
that  He  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities  and  wounded  for  our 
transgressions  ?  How  shall  we  know  that  He  was  justified 
in  the  Spirit,  and  that  He  is  now  seated  at  God's  right  hand, 
and  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  us?  Evidently 
these  things  must  depend  upon  report.  Faith  must  come 
by  hearing.  Either,  then,  such  a  religion  as  Christianity 
cannot  be  true — not  only  is  not  true,  but  cannot  be  true,  or 
at  least  known  by  us  to  be  true — or  revelation  is  not  a  mode 
of  intelligence.  In  this  sense  such  a  religion  cannot  be 
revealed.  The  only  species  of  revelation  which  it  admits  is 
that  of  verbal  exposition.  It  must  be  a  history  recited  or 
recorded,  or  both.     Faith  must  lean  on  report. 

As  a  religion  of  moral  government  so  obviously  requires 
this  species  gf  revelation,  if  revealed  at  all,  it  is  worthy  of 
remark  that  those  who  have  been  most  malignant  in  their 
assaults  against  the  bondage  of  the  letter  have  been  left  to 
exemplify  the  fact,  in  many  painful  and  distressing  instances, 
that  they  were  also  emancipated  from  the  bondage  of  the 
law.  Dealing  in  intuitions  and  rhapsodies,  living  in  a 
world  of  impalpable  shapes  and  airy  forms,  they  soon  learn 
to  treat  with  contempt  the  tame  and  sober  relations  mIiIcIi 


1 68         STAXDAED    AND    NATURE    OF    RELIGION.      [Sect.  III. 

are  involved  in  the  notions  of  husband,  citizen,  friend  and 
subject.  JNIysticism  is  an  intoxicating  draught — a  stimulus 
so  powerful,  not  unfrequently,  in  particular  directions,  that 
all  sense  of  responsibility  is  lost,  and  the  darkest  crimes 
arc  perpetrated  with  as  little  remorse  as  that  with  which  a 
drunkard  belches  forth  his  oaths  or  insults  the  wife  •  of  his 
bosom  and  the  children  of  his  loins.  The  letter  is  the 
guardian  of  morals  as  well  as  of  truth.  It  teaches  men — 
Avhat  they  are  often  anxious  to  forget — that  there  is  a  law, 
holy,  just  and  good,  and  yet  terrible  to  evil-doers,  wliich 
supports  the  eternal  throne.  It  unveils  a  judgment  to 
come ;  a  day  is  appointed  in  which  the  world  shall  be 
judged  in  righteousness,  and  every  man  shall  receive  at  the 
hands  of  impartial  justice  according  to  his  deeds.  This 
unflinching  supremacy  of  right,  this  supreme  dominion  of 
law,  this  terrible  responsibility  for  sin,  is  no  doubt  a  griev- 
ous oifence.  But  those  who  will  not  accept  the  provisions 
of  grace— all  in  accordance  with  the  immutable  requisitions 
of  right — may  kindle  a  fire  and  walk  in  the  light  of  their 
own  sparks,  but  this  shall  they  have  at  God's  hands,  they 
shall  lie  down  in  sorrow.  Their  intuitions  and  impulses, 
their  dreams  and  inspirations,  will  not  save  them  from  the 
awful  exactions  of  that  government  which  was  whispered  in 
conscience,  thundered  on  Sinai  and  hallowed  on  Calvary. 
God  will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty. 

But  misapprehending,  as  the  author  has  done,  the  essen- 
tial nature  of  religious  truth,  he  has  confounded  two  things 
that  are  entirely  distinct, — the  process  of  giving  a  revelation, 
and  the  process  of  making  a  Christian.  Having  made 
Revelation  a  fiiculty  in  man,  which,  like  every  .other  faculty, 
is  developed  by  exercise  on  its  appropriate  objects,  he  could 
find  no  other  office  for  Inspiration  but  that  of  stimulating 
and  strengthening  the  natural  organ  of  religious  truth. 
Revelation  itself  is  the  Divine  life.  The  possession  of  this 
faculty  is  what  makes  man  a  religious  being,  and  he  im- 
proves in  religion  just  to  the  extent  that  this  form  of  con- 
sciousness is  developed,  cultivated  and  refined.     Inspiration 


Sect.  III.]  EEVEL.ATION   AND   RELIGION.  169 

is  what  quickens  it  into  motion.  Let  it  be  granted  that 
there  is  'such  a  species  of  inspiration  as  that  here  described, 
it  obviously  does  not  exclude  the  inspiration  which  gives  a 
message  from  God.  If  religious  truth  is  of  such  a  nature 
that  in  order  to  be  known  it  must  be  reported,  the  fact  that 
an  influence  may  be  necessary  to  enable  a  man  to  receive 
and  understand  the  report  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  other 
fact,  that  there  must  be  some  one  to  make  the  report.  You 
can  dispense  with  messengers  only  upon  the  supposition  that 
the  knowledge  to  be  conveyed  cannot  be  communicated  by 
a  message.  It  is  this  misconception  which  has  led  our 
author  to  confound  inspiration  with  conversion.  If  he  had 
been  right  as  to  what  religion  is,  he  would  Ijave  seen  he 
necessity  of  inspiration  in  the  sense  of  the  Apostle,  who 
makes  it  the  sending  of  men  with  a  testimony  from  God. 
What  it  is  in  its  own  nature,  how  God  operated  upon  the 
minds  of  Apostles,  and  how  far  their  own  powers  were 
called  into  play,  are  simply  curious  questions,  about  which 
the  Bible  has  resolved  nothing.  The  main  thing  is,  that 
those  who  were  so  sent  spake  not  the  words  which  man's 
wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth ;  and 
as  they  spake  so  also  they  wrote,  as  they  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Their  Avords  and  writings  are  equally  and 
alike  the  testimony  of  God.  The  end  of  inspiration  is  to 
furnish  the  rule  of  faith.  Faith  comes  by  hearing,  and  hear- 
ing by  the  Word  of  God.  But,  apart  from  the  abusive 
application  of  the  term  insjnration  to  the  renewing  and 
sanctifying  operations  of  the  Spirit,  the  author  has  misrep- 
resented that  work  itself  in  consequence  of  his  primary 
error  in  reference  to  revelation. 

The  notioh  that  revelation  is  a  faculty  of  peculiar  intui- 
tions the  author  has  marvellously  confounded  with  the  evan- 
gelical doctrine  of  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  in  regeneration. 
"  In  making  these  statements,"  says  he,  "we  are  simply  put- 
ting in  a  more  definite  form  what  almost  all  classes  of  Chris- 
tians fully  admit,  and  what  they  are  perpetually  .asserting. 
Is  it  not  allowed  that  men,  even  of  intellect  and  learning, 


170         STANDARD   AXD    NATURE   OF   RELIGION.     [Sect.  III. 

may  read  the  Bible  througli  and  through  again,  aud  yet 
may  have  no  spiritual  perceptions  of  the  realities  to  which 
it  refers  ?  Do  we  not  constantly  hear  it  asserted  that  Divine 
truth  must  be  spiritually  understood?  Nay,  does  not  St. 
Paul  himself  tell  us  that  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
must  be  spiritually  discerned?  And  what  does  all  this 
amount  to  but  that  there  must  be  the  awakening  of  the 
religious  consciousness  before  the  truth  is  actually  revealed 
to  us,  and  that  it  can  only  be  revealed  to  us  at  all,  essen- 
tially speaking,  in  the  form  of  religious  intuition  ?" 

I  am  willing  to  admit  that  if  religious  truth  consisted  of 
a  collection  of  simple  and  primitive  cognitions,  the  only 
conceivable  mode  of  making  them  intelligible  to  men  would 
be  to  produce  them  in  their  consciousness.  If  God  designed 
to  impart  to  the  blind  the  idea  of  colours,  to  the  deaf  the 
idea  of  sounds,  or  to  those  totally  destitute  of  the  senses 
the  glories  of  heaven  and  the  beauties  of  earth,  it  would  be 
necessary  to  impart  the  faculties  that  they  wanted  and  bring 
them  into  contact  with  their  appropriate  objects.  But  if 
Divine  truth,  so  far  as  it  implies  intuitional  elements,  lays 
under  tribute  the  contributions  of  all  our  faculties  in  the 
ordinary  sphere  of  their  exercise,  as  it  involves  no  elements 
requiring  a  peculiar  and  distinctive  faculty  of  religion,  as  it 
appeals  mainly  and  pre-eminently  to  the  logical  understand- 
ing, the  difficulty  which  is  obviated  in  regeneration  and 
conversion  must  be  something  very  different  from  the  pro- 
duction of  a  new  class  of  cognitions.  Hence,  it  has  never 
been  contended  by  evangelical  divines  that  grace  communi- 
cates new  faculties  to  the  soul.  Man,  since  the  Fall,  pos- 
sesses all  the  original  powers  with  which  he  was  endowed 
when  he  came  from  the  hands  of  God.  Nor  is  it  contended 
that  the  Spirit  awakens  any  dormant  susceptibilities,  any 
latent  capacities  which  have  lacked  the  opportunity  of  devel- 
opment and  exercise.  Neither  this,  nor  anything  like  this, 
is  the  scriptural  theory  of  grace;  and  if  our  author  had 
understood  the  real  condition  of  man  he  would  have  seen 
the  true  position  of  the  A¥ord  in  the  economy  of  salvation, 


Sect.  III.]  REVELATION    AND    RELIGION.  171 

and  have  assigned  it  its  office  without  confounding  it  with 
the  work  of  the  Spirit. 

2.  I  proceed  to  expose  his  misconception  in  relation  to 
the  end  or  design  of  Divine  Revelation.  He  makes  it,  as 
^ve  have  seen,  a  faculty  in  man  which  God  developes  by  the 
presentation  of  its  appropriate  objects,  and  occasionally 
stimulates  by  the  special  influence  of  inspiration.  Revela- 
tion is,  therefore,  the  Divine  life.  A  man  is  religious  just 
to  the  extent  that  this  form  of  intuitional  consciousness  is 
developed,  cultivated  and  refined.  Now,  in  opposition  to 
this,  Paul  asserts  that  revelation  is  m  order  to  the  Divine 
life,  the  means  of  producing  it,  and  rearing  and  expanding 
it  to  its  full  proportions.  He  makes  faith  to  be  the  very 
essence  of  a  sinner's  religion,  and  the  Word  of  God  to  be 
its  measure  and  its  rule.  The  testimony  of  God  without  us 
supplies  us  with  the  credenda,  the  things  to  be  believed. 
That  exists  independently  of  our  own  minds.  But  will  the 
mere  report  of  the  Divine  testimony  infallibly  terminate  in 
faith  ■?  Paul  promptly  replies  that  they  have  not  all  obeyed 
the  Gospel,  and  Esaias  saith,  Lord,  who  hath  believed  our 
report  ?  What,  then,  is  the  difficulty  ?  Is  it  that  the  Gos- 
pel is  naturally  unintelligible? — that  it  contains,  I  mean, 
verbal  statements  involving  simple  ideas  or  primitive  ele- 
ments of  thought  which  we  have  no  faculties  to  grasp  ?  Is 
it  that  it  talks  of  colours  to  a  blind  man,  or  of  sounds  to  a 
deaf  one  ?  By  no  means  :  the  terms  it  uses  are  all  in  them- 
selves intelligible,  and  intelligible  by  us  with  none  but  the 
faculties  that  we  bring  with  us  into  the  world.  It  speaks  of 
a  ruler,  a  judge,  sin,  guilt,  condemnation,  pardon  and  atone- 
ment,— all  of  them  things  which,  to  some  extent,  we  are  able 
to  conceive  and  to  represent  in  thought.  It  is  not,  therefore, 
that  its  terms  are  senseless;  it  is  not  as  if  written  in  Chinese 
or  Sanscrit,  nor  like  the  preaching  of  an  angel  to  an  idiot. 

The  difficulty  is  one  which  intuition  cannot  reach.  If 
the  tilings  revealed  were  actually  present  to  the  mind,  the 
difficulty  would  still  exist ;  it  would  still  be  true  that  the 
natural    man  would    refuse    to  receive  them,  and  that  he 


172         STANDARD    AND    NATURE    OF    RELIGION.      [Sect.  III. 

could  not  spiritually  discern  them.  Mr.  Morell  seems  to 
think  that  all  that  is  wanted  is  simply  the  faculty  of  appre- 
hension— the  power  of  knowing  the  things  and  perceiving 
them  to  be  real.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  The  difficulty 
lies  in  the  moral  condition  of  the  sinner.  The  sinner 
remaining  as  he  is,  no  presence  of  spiritual  realities,  no  con- 
tact of  them  with  the  mind,  however  immediate  and  direct, 
would  give  him  a  diiferent  kind  of  discernment  from  that 
which  he  obtains  from  the  Word.  This  moral  condition  is 
denominated  in  the  Scriptures  a  state  of  death;  and  the  term 
is  happily  chosen,  for  it  exactly  describes  depravity  in  its- 
pervading  influence  u])on  all  the  powers  and  faculties  of  the 
man.  Holiness  is  called  a  life,  the  life  of  God  in  the  soul  of 
man;  and  by  pursuing  the  analogies  which  these  terms  sug- 
gest we  may  form  some  definite  conceptions  of  the  real  hin- 
drances among  men  to  the  cordial  reception  of  the  Word. 
What,  then,  is  life  ?  It  evidently  belongs  to  that  class  of 
things  which,  incomprehensible  in  themselves  and  incapable 
of  being  represented  in  thought,  are  matters  of  necessary 
belief.  We  see  its  effects,  we  witness  its  operations,  Ave  can 
seize  upon  the  symptoms  which  distinguish  its  presence. 
But  what  it  is  in  itself  no  mortal  mind  can  conceive.  We 
can  only  speak  of  it  as  the  unknown  cause  of  numberless 
phenomena  which  we  notice.  Where  is  life  ?  Is  it  here  and 
not  there  ?  is  it  there  and  not  here  ?  Is  it  in  the  heart,  the 
head,  the  hands,  the  feet  ?  It  evidently  pervades  the  frame ; 
it  is  the  condition,  the  indispensable  condition  to  the  organic 
action  of  every  part  of  the  body.  The  body  may  be  j)erfect  in 
its  structure;  it  may  have  every  limb  and  nerve  and  muscle, 
and  foreign  influences  may  be  made  to  mimic  the  operations 
of  life,  but  if  life  be  not  there  these  actions,  or  rather  motions, 
will  be  essentially  distinct  from  those  of  the  living  man.^ 

In  like  manner  holiness  is  a  generic  condition  of  the  soul. 
As  a  state  or  nature  it  is  incomprehensible  in  itself;  we 

1  Note  by  Editor. — Some  of  these  sentiments  and  illustrations  will 
be  fonnd  also  in  Vol.  I.  Thcl.  Lect.  xiv.,  and  in  Vol.  II.  Discourse  i. 
on  Truth. 


Sect.  III.]  REVELATION    AND    RELIGION.  173 

can  no  more  represent  it  in  thought  than  we  can  form  an 
image  of  power  or  causation.  It  is  a  something  which  lies  at 
the  foundation  of  all  the  soul's  exercises  and  operations,  and 
gives  them  a  peculiar  and  distinctive  cast.  It  is  not  itself 
a  habit  nor  a  collection  of  habits,  but  the  indispensable 
condition  of  all  spiritual  habits.  It  is  not  here  nor  there, 
but  it  pervades  the  whole  man — the  understanding,  the 
will,  the  conscience,  the  affections;  it  underlies  all  the  dis- 
positions and  habitudes,  and  is  felt  in  all  the  thoughts  and 
desires.  Natural  life  has  its  characteristic  functions;  so 
spiritual  life  has  its  distinguishing  tendencies.  They  all 
point  to  God.  He  is  holy,  and  where  this  quality  exists  in 
the  creature  it  is  attracted  to  Him  and  produces  a  com- 
munion, a  fellowship,  a  familiarity,  if  I  may  so  speak, 
which  easily  detects  the  impressions  of  God  wherever  they 
exist.  It  involves  an  union  with  Him  that  renders  His 
traces  patent  and  obvious  wherever  they  are  found.  Spir- 
itual death  or  depravity  is  the  opposite  of  all  this — a  gen- 
eric condition  of  the  soul  in  which  these  particular  exercises 
are  not  possible.  The  same  faculties  may  remain,  the  same 
ideas  may  be  suggested,  the  same  objective  realities  may 
be  conceived,  the  same  materials  of  thinking  may  exist, 
but  that  influence  proceeding  from  holiness  M'hich  distin- 
guishes all  the  oj^erations  of  the  sanctified  mind  is  wanting. 
That  union  and  fellowship  with  God,  that  mysterious 
familiarity  which  hears  and  knows  His  voice  even  in  its 
lowest  whispers,  is  gone.  The  characteristic  tendencies  of 
the  carnal  mind  are  from  God ;  it  is  even  enmity  against 
God,  not  subject  to  His  law  nor  capable  of  becoming  so. 
Now  faith,  in  the  apostolic  sense,  involves  the  recognition 
of  God  in  the  Word.  It  believes  in  consequence  of  the 
Divine  testimony.  It  knows  God's  voice.  When  the 
Gospel  is  proclaimed  it  is  perceived  to  be  a  message  of 
love  and  of  mercy  from  the  eternal  throne. 

This  faith  can  only  exist  in  a  holy  heart.  An  uncon- 
verted sinner  can  no  more  exercise  it  than  the  dead  can  rise 
and  walk  or  the  blind   can  see.     Two  men  may  receive  a 


174         STANDARD   AND   NATURE   OF   RELIGION.      [Sect.  III. 

letter  from  the  same  person,  or  rather  the  same  letter  may 
be  put  into  the  hands  of  both.  One  is  an  intimate  friend 
of  the  writer,  the  other  an  entire  stranger.  The  stranger 
reads  it,  and  apprehends  exactly  the  same  ideas,  considered 
as  mere  thoughts ;  but  he  sees  not  the  writer  in  it,  and  can- 
not enter  into  it  with  that  sympathy,  that  cordiality  and 
delight  with  Avhich  the  friend  peruses  it.  The  Gospel  is  a 
message  from  God;  all  holy  hearts  see  God  in  it,  and  re- 
joice in  it  because  of  His  Name;  strangers  and  aliens  have 
the  Word  in  their  hands,  but  have  not  God  in  the  Word. 
They  may  be  convinced  by  external  arguments — and  such 
arguments  abound — that  it  is  indeed  His  message ;  but  they 
have  not  that  witness  within  themselves  upon  Avhicli  the 
heart  reposes  with  assured  confidence.  Now  here  comes  in 
the  agency  of  the  Spirit,  who  imparts  that  new  nature, 
that  generic  condition  of  soul,  which  brings  the  heart  into 
sympathy  with  God  and  all  that  is  Divine,  and  enables  it 
to  believe.  This  throws  a  new  light  around  the  truth,  gives 
a  new  direction  to  the  heart  and  imparts  its  influence  to 
the  whole  soul.  It  creates  an  instinct  for  God,  which  infal- 
libly recognizes  His  presence  wherever  He  condescends  to 
manifest  it.  There  is  no  new  faculty  and  there  are  no  new 
ideas ;  but  there  is  a  new  mode  of  exercising  all  the  foculties 
and  a  new  discernment  of  the  old  truths. 

Just  apprehensions,  consequently,  of  the  work  of  the 
Spirit  afford  no  manner  of  countenance  to  the  doctrine 
that  Divine  revelation  involves  an  intuitive  perception 
of  spiritual  realities.  Place  a  sinner  in  heaven,  and  he 
would  be  no  nearer  to  a  spiritual  discernment  of  the  glories 
of  God  and  the  Lamb  than  he  is  in  his  guilt  and  blind- 
ness on  earth.  He  would  there  need  as  much  as  here  to  be 
born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  that  his  heart  might  magnify 
the  Lord. 

The  apostolic  theory  of  the  relations  of  faith  and  reve- 
lation indicates  an  appointment  of  God  in  regard  to  the 
Divine  life  in  beautiful  analogy  with  his  arrangements  for 
the  preservation   and  growth  of  animal  existence.      One 


Sect.  III.]  REVELATION    AND   EELIGIOX.  175 

thing,  as  Butler  has  forcibly  illustrated,  is  set  over  against 
another.  Life  implies  an  inAvard  state,  and  an  external 
condition  to  correspond  to  it;  and  in  the  harmony  of  these 
conditions  consists  the  healthfulness  of  being.  Now,  the 
Word  is  to  the  spiritual  man  the  external  condition  to 
which  his  new  nature  is  adapted — it  is  the  element  in  which 
it  moves,  and  grows  and  flourishes.  It  is  milk  to  babes, 
and  strong  meat  to  those  who  have  their  senses  exercised 
by  reason  of  use.  If  God  should  regenerate  a  man,  and 
leave  him  in  the  world  without  His  truth,  in  some  form  or 
other,  communicated — if,  for  example,  He  should  renew  a 
heathen,  and  yet  give  him  no  revelation  of  His  will,  except 
as  He  might  gather  it  from  the  instincts  and  impulses  of 
the  iiew  heart — how  deplorable  would  be  his  condition  ! 
Conceive  him  pregnant  with  celestial  fire.  Upon  what 
objects  shall  his  mind  be  employed  ?  Where  shall  he  go  to 
find  the  materials  that  are  suited  to  his  taste  ?  He  has 
cravings  which  earth  cannot  satisfy,  and  yet  knows  nothing 
of  the  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven,  nor  of  the 
streams  which  gush  from  Siloah's  fount.  He  longs  for 
God,  but  his  soul  cannot  find  Him;  and  as  he  feels  for 
Him  on  the  right,  and  He  is  not  there,  on  the  left,  but  He 
is  gone,  he  sinks  down  in  weariness  and  disappointment, 
to  famish  and  die.  He  is  in  a  world  of  enemies,  of  idolaters 
and  will-worshippers  and  children  of  the  Devil.  Where 
is  his  jjanoply  against  the  powers  of  darkness — the  shield 
of  faith,  the  helmet  of  salvation  and  the  sword  of  the  Spirit? 
What  hopes  shall  support  and  dignify  his  soul  ?  He  knows 
nothing  of  Christ,  nothing  of  the  Spirit,  nothing  of  the 
Divine  promises,  nothing  of  the  glorious  inheritance  of  the 
saints  in  light.  There  is  no  element  about  him  which  cor- 
responds to  his  disposition.  No,  impossible!  Such  an 
anomaly  never  takes  place ;  it  cannot  be  endured  that  God's 
children  should  be  as  orphans  in  the  world,  without  food 
or  raiment  or  shelter.  As  well  might  we  suppose  that 
fish  should  be  transferred  to  the  air  and  birds  to  the  sea 
as  that  God  should  new-create  a  soul   and  leave  it  without 


176         STANDARD    AND    NATURE    OF    RELIGION.      [Sect.  III. 

the  external  adaptations  that  its  wants  demand.  These,  in 
this  life,  ai'e  found  in  the  Bible;  faith  makes  them  realities, 
makes  them  substantial.  It  opens  from  the  Scriptures  a 
new  and  glorious  world,  to  which  all  the  faculties  of  the 
new  creature  are  proportioned ;  and  when  it  has  educated 
and  trained  them  for  a  higher  sphere,  they  pass  from  its 
discipline  to  the  full  fruition  of  the  things  themselves. 
We  now  learn  in  books;  we  shall  hereafter  study  things. 
The  appointments  of  God  in  the  kingdom  of  grace  are 
at  one  with  this  appointment  in  the  kingdom  of  nature. 

The  argument  does  not  apply  to  infants  dying  in  infancy, 
because  they  may  be  translated  instantly  to  a  sphere  in 
which  a  holy  nature  shall  have  ample  opportunity  of  ex- 
pansion. But  the  anomaly  cannot  be  endured  that  God's 
children  should  be  left  as  sheep  without  a  shepherd ;  even 
worse,  without  food,  raiment  or  shelter. 

The  scriptural  doctrine,  moreover,  guards  against  the 
absurd  supposition  that  the  life  of  religion  consists  in  the 
development  and  expansion  of  any  single  power  of  the 
soul.  It  is  not  confined  to  any  one  department  of  thought 
or  feeling.  The  whole  man  must  acknowledge  its  influence; 
it  thinks  in  the  head,  feels  in  the  heart  and  acts  in  the  will. 
It  is  the  great  pervading  law  of  our  being,  leading  us  to 
find  God  everywhere,  and,  whether  we  eat  or  drink,  to  do 
all  to  His  glory.  It  is  the  religion  of  a  moral  creature 
under  the  dominion  of  a  moral  law;  not  the  visions  of  a 
seer,  the  phantoms  of  a  dreamer,  but  the  inspiration  of  a 
soul  pregnant  with  celestial  fire.  Body,  soul  and  spirit,  all 
are  the  organs  of  the  Divine  life.  It  extends  to  all  actions, 
to  all  impulses,  to  all  ends.  It  reigns  as  well  as  lives. 
Such  is  Bible  religion.  How  stunted  and  dwarfish,  in 
comparison,  a  single  faculty  gazing  on  a  single  class  of 
things— the  eye  playing  with  colours,  or  the  ear  sporting 
Avith  sounds ! 

II.  Having  shown  that  the  tlieory  in  question  mistakes 
the  nature  of  religious  truth  and  the  office  of  revelation  in 
the  economy  of  salvation,  it  only  remains  that  the  essence 


Skct.  TIL]  REVELATION    AXD    liELIGIOX.  177 

of  Religion  should  be  more  distinctly  considered.  In  its 
subjective  and  objective  aspects  a  little  has  already  been 
said  of  it,  but  only  in  reference  to  the  argument  then  in 
hand.  It  is  particularly  in  the  subjective  aspect  that  we 
propose  to  consider  it  now.  The  question  is,  What  is  it  to 
be  religious  ?  Particularly,  What  is  it  to  be  a  Christian  ? 
The  word  essence  is  very  unfortunately  applied  to  the  sub- 
ject, as  it  is  apt  to  mislead  by  its  vagueness  and  ambiguitv. 
If  it  is  supposed  that  there  is  some  one  formal  quality,  some 
simple  and  uniform  idea  that  enters  into  all  the  exercises 
that  are  distinctively  religious  (the  notion  evidently  of  our 
author),  it  is  a  very  great  misapprehension.  When  we 
arrange  things  according  to  their  colour  it  is  precisely  the 
same  quality  of  whiteness  which  characterizes  all  that  ^ve 
classify  as  white.  But  there  is  no  single  quality  of  actions 
and  of  thoughts  that  causes  them  to  be  ranked  under  the 
head  of  religion.  Two  emotions,  entirely  distinct  in  their 
own  nature,  having  nothing  in  common,  considered  merely 
as  phenomena,  may  yet  be  equally  religious— hope  and  fear, 
for  example.  Upon  what  ground  are  they  grouped  together  ? 
The  reason  of  the  classification  must  evidently  be  sought, 
not  in  themselves,  but  in  the  state  of  mind  from  which  they 
proceed.  That  state  of  mind  which  is  truly  religious  is  the 
condition  which  we  have  previously  described  as  spiritual 
life  or  holiness;  but  as  a  state  we  have  also  seen  that  it 
belongs  to  the  category  of  things  which  we  are  compelled 
to  believe  without  being  able  to  represent  in  thought.  It 
is  rather,  in  fact,  the  condition  of  religion  than  religion 
itself.  That  consists  in  the  exercises  which  proceed  from  this 
state  of  the  soul,  and  they  are  all  distinguished  by  the  cir- 
cumstance that  they  are  in  harmony  with  our  relations  to 
God.  These  relations  must  be  known  before  it  can  be  deter- 
mined that  any  given  experiences  are  proper  manifestations 
of  religion.  The  subjective  cannot  be  comprehended  Avith- 
out  the  objective.  An  universal  and  pervading  disposition 
to  comply  with  the  will  of  God — a  heart  in  symjxathy  with 
Him,  is  the  nearest  approximation  tlint  we  can   make  to  a 

Vol.  III.— 12 


178  STANDARD   AND   NATUEE   OF   RELIGION.     [Skct.  III. 

description  of  what  constitutes  religion  as  a  subjective  phe- 
nomenon. This  is  the  state  in  which  angels  are,  the  state 
in  which  man  would  have  been,  if  man  had  never  sinned. 
This  is  the  state  to  which  when  men  are  exalted  they  are 
said  to  be  saved.  This  is  religion  in  general.  Now,  Chris- 
tianity is  a  scheme  through  which,  in  conformity  with  the 
nature  of  moral  government,  man  is  recovered  from  his  ruin 
and  exalted  to  this  condition.  It  is  the  immediate  end 
which  the  mediation  of  Christ  aims  at,  and  the  attainment 
of  this  end  in  the  case  of  any  sinner  is  salvation.  But 
the  means  by  which  Christianity  produces  its  fruits  in  us 
is  faith.  This  is  the  great  requirement  of  the  Gospel,  the 
only  medium  by  which  we  can  ever  be  brought  into  har- 
mony and  fellowship  with  God.  Hence,  faith  may  justly 
be  described  as  embracing  the  whole  religion  of  a  sinner. 
"He  that  believeth  hath  everlasting  life;"  "with  the  heart 
man  believeth  unto  righteousness,  and  with  the  mouth  confes- 
sion is  made  unto  salvation."  It  is  not  only  the  instrument  by 
which  through  Christ  we  are  justified,  but  the  organ  through 
which  the  whole  Word  of  God  operates  upon  the  soul  and 
builds  it  up  in  holiness.  It  is  the  great  and  all-comprehen- 
sive duty  which  springs  from  our  relation  to  God  under 
the  Gospel. 

I  need  not  prosecute  this  inquiry  any  farther.  It  is  only 
necessary  to  put  the  two  systems,  that  of  the  Gospel  and 
that  of  the  subjective  philosophy,  side  by  side,  in  order  that 
we  may  perceive  the  immeasurable  superiority  of  the 
former.  Both  admit  the  importance  of  revelation,  and  in 
developing  its  nature  the  Gospel  gives  us  three  terms — the 
Person  from  whom,  the  persons  to  whom,  and  the  message 
itself.  Its  revelation  professes  to  be  the  Word  of  God. 
The  new  philosophy  gives  us  but  two — a  thinking  mind,  and 
the  things  to  be  thought.  There  is  no  Revealer;  it  is  a  mes- 
sage without  an  author  and  without  a  messenger.  Which 
is  most  reasonable?  AVhen  we  go  a  step  farther,  and 
inquire  into  the  characteristics  of  the  things  revealed,  the 
Gospel   unfolds  a  system   of  moral  government  springing 


Sect.  III.]  REVELATION    AND    RELIGION.  179 

from  the  very  nature  of  God  and  His  relations  to  His  crea- 
tures, involving  a  series  of  the  sublimest  events  that  the 
mind  can  conceive.  It  unveils  the  great  drama  of  Provi- 
dence, and  shows  how  the  Divine  purposes  have  been  work- 
ing to  their  accomplishment  from  the  beginning  of  all 
things.  It  spans  the  arch  of  time — explains  to  man  his 
nature,  his  fall,  his  duty  and  his  destiny.  Above  all,  it 
unveils  a  scheme  of  grace,  an  eternal  purpose  conceived  in 
the  bosom  of  infinite  love  for  the  redemption  of  the  guilty, 
and  executed  in  the  fullness  of  time  by  an  agency  so  mys- 
terious and  amazing  that  angels  desire  to  look  into  it. 
Throughout  the  Bible  holiness  reigns.  God  appears  there 
a  holy  God,  His  law  supreme;  and  the  perfection  of  man  is 
measured  by  his  approach  to  the  Divine  excellence.  Relig- 
ion is  there  represented  as  a  life  into  which  we  are  quick- 
ened by  Almighty  grace,  and  which  brings  every  faculty  of 
the  soul  in  sweet  subjection  to  the  authority  of  God.  What 
are  the  revelations  of  the  subjective  philosophy?  Echo 
answers.  What?  There  are  no  responses  from  the  tripod, 
the  oracles  are  yet  dumb.  The  worshipper  sits,  and  gazes, 
and  feels,  but  what  he  sees  and  how  he  feels  we  are  quietly 
told  that  mortal  language  is  incompetent  to  describe. 

One  of  the  most  offensive  features  in  this  system  is  the 
utter  deceitfulness  with  which  it  avails  itself  of  the  ambi- 
guity of  language.  From  its  free  and  familiar  use  of  the 
language  consecrated  to  evangelical  religion  the  unwary 
reader  is  insensibly  beguiled  from  the  contemplation  of  its 
real  character.  It  pretends  to  be  a  revealed  system.  This 
sounds  fair  and  well.  But  when  we  look  a  little  deeper, 
it  is  a  revelation  as  nature  is  a  revelation,  and  when  we 
express  our  astonishment  at  this  abuse  of  words,  we  are 
told  for  our  comfort  that  God  made  the  world  and  that  He 
made  us  with  faculties  capable  of  knowing  its  existence. 
He  reveals  the  world  to  us  by  creating  us  with  eyes  to  see  it. 
The  whole  work  is  Divine.  So  He  made  a  certain  class  of 
spiritual  concretions,  and  made  us  with  faculties  capable 
of  enjoying  them.     This  is  all  surely  Divine ! 


180         STANDARD    AND   NATURE   OF    RELIGION.      [Sect.  III. 

So  again  it  speaks  of  a  Divine  life.  But  wlien  we 
inquire  into  its  meaning  we  do  not  find  the  new  birth,  we 
do  not  recognize  a  holy  nature,  we  do  not  discover  an  influ- 
ence upon  the  whole  soul  of  man  which  brings  him  into 
harmony  with  Divine  truth.  There  is  nothing  supernat- 
ural, there  is  nothing  eminently  gracious.  On  the  contrary, 
we  meet  with  nothing  but  what  takes  place  in  regard  to 
every  function  of  life — -just  the  natural  faculty  developed  and 
exercised  by  the  presentation  of  its  appropriate  objects. 
The  faculty  of  religion  and  the  faculty  of  imagination  are 
brought  into  activity  in  the  same  way,  and  there  is  as  much 
of  grace  and  as  much  of  God  in  the  process  by  which  a  child 
learns  to  know  that  a  stone  is  hard  as  in  the  process  by 
which  a  man  passes  from  death  to  life.  God  may  dispose  cir- 
cumstances so  as  to  hasten  the  development,  but  all  religion 
springs  from  the  man  himself!  Such,  without  exaggeration 
or  caricature,  is  the  system  for  which  we  are  called  upon  to 
surrender  the  Bible.  We  are  to  give  up  God's  Word  and  the 
hopes  of  the  Gospel  for  the  rhapsodies  and  ravings  of  every 
spirit  who  pretends  to  a  higher  development  of  the  relig- 
ious consciousness.  Man  must  be  supreme.  He  must  be 
allowed  to  create  his  God,  his  law,  his  religion  !  The  mind 
of  every  individual  is  the  universe  to  him,  intuition  is  his 
oracle,  and  he  has  but  to  look  within  to  know  his  state,  his 
prospects  and  his  destiny  ! 

Behold,  I  show  you  a  more  excellent  way.  "God,  who  at 
sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners  spake  in  times  past 
unto  the  fathers  by  the  Prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days 
spoken  unto  us  by  His  Son."  We  have  a  message  from  the 
skies.  We  are  not  left,  like  the  blind,  to  grope  in  the  dark, 
but  we  have  an  excellent  Word,  to  which  we  are  exhorted 
to  take  heed  as  unto  a  light  that  shineth  in  a  dark  place. 
But  let  us  remember  that  the  Word  alone  cannot  save  us;  it 
is  the  means  but  not  the  source  of  life.  The  Bible  without 
the  Spirit  is  a  dead  letter,  as  the  spirit  without  the  Bible  is 
a  Iving  delusion.    The  Spirit  and  the  Bible,  this  is  the  great 


Sect.  III.]  REVELATION    AND    RELIGION.  181 

principle  of  Protestant  Christianity.  "  The  doctrine  whieli 
■\ve  defend  is  not  only  the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures,  but, 
still  further,  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  If  we  main- 
tain the  Scriptures  against  those  Avho  wish  only  for  the 
Spirit,  so  do  we  also  maintain  the  Spirit  against  those  who 
w^ish  for  nothing  but  the  Scriptures."  The  Bible  without 
the  Spirit  can  rise  no  higher  than  formalism — the  spirit 
without  the  Bible  will '  infallibly  end  in  fanaticism.  The 
Bible  with  the  Spirit  will  conduct  to  Christ,  to  holiness  and 
God.  The  times  are  threatening.  With  the  earlier  schools 
of  infidelity  the  main  objection  to  the  Scriptures  was  that 
they  inculcated  the  necessity  of  a  Divine  life  in  the  soul  of 
man — they  wanted  to  get  quit  of  the  Spirit ;  with  the  sub- 
jective philosophers  the  great  difSculty  is  that  they  are  not 
all  spirit.  Surely  the  men  of  this  world  are  like  children 
sitting  in  the  market-place ;  if  you  pipe  to  them  they  refuse 
to  dance,  if  you  mourn  they  refuse  to  weep. 

I  confess  frankly  my  apprehensions  that,  if  the  great  doc- 
trine of  the  supremacy  of  the  Scriptures  should  be  shaken 
in  the  popular  mind,  we  have  no  security  against  the  per- 
petration of  the  most  enormous  crimes  in  the  hallowed  name 
of  religion.  If  men  are  to  draw  their  faith  from  themselves, 
it  will  be  like  themselves — it  will  patronize  their  lusts  and 
sanctify  their  most  outrageous  excesses.  It  is  imjjossible  to 
estimate  the  power  of  the  Bible  as  a  bit  to  curb  where  it 
does  riot  save.  Of  all  ungovernable  mobs  that  is  the  most 
dangerous  which  acts  under  the  frenzy  of  religious  fanat- 
icism. When  men  enthrone  the  Devil  as  their  god,  we  may 
tremble  for  the  interests  of  society.  Give  me  storms,  earth- 
quakes and  tornadoes,  plague,  pestilence  and  famine — any 
form  of  evil  that  springs  from  the  Providence  of  God — but 
save  me  from  that  hell,  the  hearts  of  men  where  the  fiends 
of  foul  delusion  have  taken  up  their  lodgment.  The  Bible, 
the  Bible  is  the  great  safeguard  of  nations.  We  must  rever- 
ence its  holy  pages  as  we  love  our  country,  our  homes  and  our- 
selves.    We  must  stand  by  the  Scriptures  or  perish.     AA^ell 


182         STANDARD    AND    NATURE   OF   RELIGION.      [Sect.  III. 

did  Luther  say,  "  If  we  will  not  drink  of  the  water  of  the 
fountain,  so  fresh  and  pure,  God  will  cast  us  into  ponds  and 
sloughs,  and  there  oblige  us  to  swallow  long  draughts  of  a 
putrid  and  stinking  water." 

Note.  In  the  passage  "whosoever  believeth,"  etc.,  it  may  be  well  to 
remark  that  the  universality  is  implied  in  the  o  7.eyuv,  and  that  Paul  intro- 
duces the  Traf  as  interpretative. 


THE  OFFICE  OF  REASON  IN  REGARD  TO 
REVELATION. 


T  OED  BACON  has  very  justly  observed,  in  relation 
-L^  to  the  subject  announced  at  the  liead  of  this  article,  that 
Christianity  maintains  the  "  golden  mediocrity  between  the 
law  of  the  heathen  and  the  law  of  Mohammed,  which  have 
embraced  the  two  extremes."  The  heathen  system  attached 
no  importance  to  truth;  "it  had  no  constant  belief  or  con- 
fession, but  left  all  to  the  liberty  of  argument."  In  its 
richer  developments  it  was  evidently  the  offspring  of  imag- 
ination, requiring  no  piety,  but  taste.  Fables  were  its 
Scriptures,  poets  its  divines  and  the  fine  arts  its  altars.  In 
its  practical  operations  it  was  an  affair  of  State.  Princes 
w^ere  its  priests,  magistrates  its  guardians,  and  obedience  to 
its  precepts  a  branch  of  the  duties  of  a  citizen.  Destitute 
of  truth,  it  was,  of  course,  destitute  of  moral  power ;  and 
from  the  intimate  connection  which  subsists  between  the 
imagination  and  emotions,  its  appeals  to  the  fancy  must 
have  served  to  inflame  the  passions  and  to  augment  the 
corruption  which  it  is  the  office  of  religion  to  repress.  Cul- 
tivating to  excess  that  "  forward,  delusive  faculty "  which 
Butler  pronounces  to  be  the  "author  of  all  error,"  while 
it  left  the  understanding  without  instruction  and  the  heart 
without  discipline,  it  must  have  formed  a  species  of  charac- 
ter in  which  indifference  to  truth  was  strangely  blended 
with  sensibility  to  beauty,  and  refinement  of  taste  unnat- 
urally combined  Avitli  the  grossness  of  vice  and  the  obscen- 
ities of  lust. 

183 


184  THE  OFFICE  OF  REASON 

The  law  of  Mohammed  claimed  to  be  a  revelation  from 
heaven ;  and  though,  in  accordance  with  its  pretensions,  it 
demanded  faith,  yet,  as  it  presented  no  rational  grounds  of 
conviction,  its  policy  was  to  intimidate  or  bribe  the  under- 
standing, according  as  fear,  prejudice  or  lust  was  the  pre- 
dominant principle  of  action.  Where  it  could  not  extort  a 
blind  credulity,  it  made  the  passions  the  vehicles  of  its  doc- 
trines ;  the  timid  it  frightened  to  submission,  the  profligate 
it  allured  to  acquiescence,  and  the  heretic  and  skeptic  it 
wheedled  and  cajoled  by  a  partial  patronage  of  their  errors. 
Exclusively  a  system  of  authority,  it  gave  no  scope  to  dis- 
cussion. Its  great  argument  was  the  word  of  its  Prophet, 
its  decisive  sanction  the  sword  of  its  soldiers,  and  its  strong- 
est attraction  the  license  which  it  gave  to  voluptuous  indul- 
gences. Paganism  wore  the  "face  of  error,"  and  Moham- 
medanism of  "imposture." 

Christianity,  on  the  contrary,  attaches  pre-eminent  im- 
portance to  truth,  and  acknowledges  no  faith  but  that  which 
is  founded  in  conviction.  At  the  same  time  it  professes  to 
be  from  God,  and  therefore,  as  becomes  it,  speaks  with 
authority.  As  a  system  claiming  to  be  Divine,  it  invites 
the  fullest  discussion.  As  a  system  proved  to  be  Divine,  it 
demands  implicit  submission.  It  both  "  admits  and  rejects 
disputation  with  difference." 

But  how  far  "it  admits"  and  how  far  "it  rejects  disputa- 
tion"— that  is,  the  precise  province  of  reason  in  regard  to 
revelation — is  a  point  Avhich  has  been  keenly  discussed 
between  Socinians  and  the  orthodox,  infidels  and  believers 
in  Christianity. 

It  is  needless  to  deny  that  the  language  of  divines  has 
not  always  been  sufficiently  guarded  on  the  subject.  Their 
intemperate  reprobations  of  the  spirit  of  perverse  specula- 
tion which  confounds  the  departments  of  Revelation  and 
Philosophy,  and  applies  to  the  former  measures  of  truth 
which  are  obviously  incompatible  with  its  nature,  have 
given  some  pretext  to  the  calumny  that  faith  is  inconsistent 
with  reason,  and  that  Christianity  repudiates  an  appeal  to 


IN    REGARD    TO    REVELATION.  185 

argument.  Religion,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  is 
addressed  to  reason.^  Its  duties  are  represented  as  a  reason- 
able service,  and  its  inspired  teachers,  who  disdained  the 
tricks  of  human  eloquence  and  disclaimed  the  agency  of 
human  wisdom  as  an  adequate  foundation  of  faith,  were 
accustomed  to  resort  to  argument  to  produce  conviction.  It 
is  reason  which  distinguishes  man  from  the  brute.  With- 
out it  we  should  be  incompetent  to  apprehend  truth  or  feel 
the  obligation  of  moral  law — as  incapable  of  ajDpreciating 
a  message  from  God  as  "the  beasts  which  perish."  To 
say,  therefore,  that  Christianity  puts  an  absolute  interdict 
upon  the  exeix'ise  of  reason  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  she 
exempts  us  from  the  duty  of  considering  her  claims.  To 
prohibit  rational  is  to  prohibit  moral  action.  To  strip  us 
of  reason  is  to  free  us  from  law. 

The  question,  however,  in  dispute,  is  not  in  regard  to  rea- 
son as  a  faculty  of  the  mind,  the  faculty  which  judges  of 
truth  and  falsehood,  right  and  wrong;  but  in  regard  to  rea- 
son as  a  compendious  expression  for  the  principles  and 
maxims,  the  opinions,  conclusions  or  prejudices  which,  with 
or  without  foundation,  men  acknowledge  to  be  true.  Locke 
and  Witsius  have  both  pointed  out  the  distinction.^     Rea- 

'  Cseternm  Ratio,  quantumvis  corrupta,  Ratio  tamen  manet,  id  est,  ea  fac- 
ultas  qua  lionio  cognoscit  et  judical.  Adeo  quidem  ut  homo  iiiliil  omnino, 
quale  illudcunque  sit,  cognoscere  et  judicare  valeat,  nisi  per  rationeni 
suara,  tanquam  proximum  cognitionis  et  judicii  principiura  et  causani. 
Idcirco  si  Divinseres,  si  mysteria  Religionis  cognoscenda  sint,  non  aliter  id 
fieri  potest  nisi  per  Rationem.  Ipsa  Fides,  quum  cognitio  et  v6?jaic  sit  et 
assensus,  Rationis  sive  mentis  est  operatio.  Idque  tarn  est  liquidum  ut  pro 
rationali  non  sit  habendus  qui  in  dubium  id  revocat.  Witsius,  Opera, 
Tom.  ii.,  p.  588 :  De  Usu  et  Abusu  Rationis,  §  x. 

2  Locke  says:  "The  word  reason,  in  the  English  language,  has  different 
significations.  Sometimes  it  is  taken  for  true  and  clear  principles ;  some- 
times for  clear  and  fair  deductions  from  those  principles ;  and  sometimes 
for  the  cause,  and  particularly  tlie  final  cause.  But  tlie  consideration  I 
shall  have  of  it  here  is  in  a  signification  different  from  all  these ;  and 
that  is,  as  it  stands  for  a  faculty  in  man — that  faculty  wliereby  man  is 
supposed  to  be  distinguished  from  beasts,  and  wherein  it  is  evident  he 
much  surpasses  them."     Hum.  Understand.,  Book  iv.,  c.  17,  H. 

Witsius  says :  "Ratio  significat  vel  Facui<a<e»i  hominis  qua  percepit  et 


186  THE   OFFICE   OF   REASON 

son,  in  the  one  sense,  is  necessarily  presupposed  in  the  very 
idea  of  revelation;  but  to  reason  in  the  other,  it  is  not  only 
possible,  but  likely,  that  a  system  which  shall  pre-eminently 
display  the  wisdom  and  the  power  of  God  shall  appear  to 
be  foolishness.  "The  Jews,"  says  the  Apostle,  "require  a 
sign,  and  the  Greeks  seek  after  wisdom;  but  we  preach 
Christ  crucified — unto  the  Jews  a  stumbling-block,  and  unto 
the  Greeks  foolishness;  but  unto  them  which  are  called, 
both  Jews  and  Greeks,  Christ  the  power  of  God  and  the 
wisdom  of  God."  The  distinctive  principles  of  Christianity 
contradicted  the  distinctive  principles  of  every  sect  of  the 
ancient  philosophers.  By  its  humbling  representations  of 
the  depravity  and  impotence  of  man  it  rebuked  the  pride 
of  the  Stoic ;  the  Epicurean  was  disgusted  with  its  heroic 
maxims  of  self-denial  and  benevolence ;  the  Sophist  was 
confounded  with  a  standard  of  eternal  truth  which  poured 
contempt  upon  his  quibbling  speculations;  and  the  Rheto- 
rician seemed  to  be  degraded  by  a  system  which  looked 
for  success  not  to  the  enticing  words  of  man's  wisdom,  but 
to  the  demonstration  and  power  of  God's  Holy  Spirit.  The 
disciples  of  the  Porch,  Lyceum  and  Academy  all  concurred 
in  rejecting  the  Gospel,  not  because  its  external  evidences 
were  unsatisfactory  or  defective — these  they  hardly  took 
the  trouble  to  examine — but  because  the  doctrines  it  incul- 
cated were  inconsistent  with  the  instructions  of  their  mas- 
ters. Here  reason,  or  what  men  regarded  as  reason,  was 
plainly  at  war  with  revelation.  What  God  pronounced  to 
be  wisdom,  the  Greek  denounced  as  foolishness.  What 
the  Greek  pronounced  to  be  wisdom,  God  denounced  as 
foolishness.  "The  Lord  knoweth  the  thoughts  of  the  wise, 
that  they  are  vain." 

In  regard  to  doctrines  which  are  known  to  be  a  revelation 
from  God  there  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  precise  office 
of  reason.     The  understanding  is  simply  to  believe.    Every 

judicat  verumque  a  falso  dignoscii ;  vel,  placita,  scita,  axwmata,  qufe  vel 
per  se  evidentia  sunt,  vel  ex  evidentibus  certa  consecutione  deducta  cre- 
duntur."     Opera,  Tom.  ii.,  p.  585  :  De  Usu  et  Abusu  Kat.,  ^  iii. 


IN    REGARD   TO   REVELATION.  187 

proud  thought  aud  every  lofty  imagination  must  be  brought 
in  captivity  to  the  Father  of  lights.  When  God  speaks, 
faith  is  the  highest  exercise  of  reason.  In  His  testimony 
we  have  all  the  elements  of  truth,  and  His  veracity  is  the 
ultimate  ground  of  certainty  in  every  species  of  evidence. 
The  resistless  laws  of  belief  which  he  has  impressed  upon 
the  constitution  of  our  minds,  which  lie  at  the  foundation 
of  all  human  knowledge,  without  which  the  materials  of 
sense  and  consciousness  could  never  be  constructed  into 
schemes  of  philosophy  and  science,  derive  all  their  author- 
ity from  His  own  unchanging  truth.  Let  it,  for  a  mo- 
ment, be  supposed  that  God  is  willing  to  deceive  us,  and 
who  could  rely  with  confidence  upon  the  information  of  his 
faculties  ?  Who  would  trust  his  senses  if  the  instinct  by 
which  he  is  impelled  to  do  so  might,  after  all,  be  a  false 
light  to  seduce  him  into  error  ?  That  instinct  is  the  testimony 
of  God;  and  what  we  call  reasoning  is  nothing  but  the 
successive  steps  by  which  we  arrive  at  the  same  testimony 
in  the  original  structure  of  our  minds.  Hence  belief,  even 
in  cases  of  the  strictest  demonstration,  must,  in  the  last 
analysis,  be  traced  to  the  veracity  of  God,  Reasoning  is 
only  a  method  of  ascertaining  what  God  teaches ;  the  true 
ground  of  belief  is  the  fact  that  God  does  teach  the  proposi- 
tion in  question.^  If  the  laws  of  belief  be  the  testimony 
of  God,  aud  whatever  accords  with  them  be  evidence,  va- 
riously denominated,  according  to  the  clearness  or  direct- 
ness with  which  the  accordance  is  felt  or  perceived,  then 
knowledge  and  opinion  both  rest  alike  upon  this  testimony ; 
the  only  difference  betwixt  them  being  the  diiference  in 
intensity  and  distinctness  with  which  that  testimony  is  per- 
ceived. All  real  evidence,  whether  intuitive,  demonstrative 
or  probable,  is  only  the  light  with  which  He  irradiates  the 
mind  ;  and  we  follow  it  with  confidence,  because  the  strength 

^  Eeason,  says  Mr.  Locke,  is  natural  revelation,  whereby  the  eternal 
Father  of  light  and  fountain  of  all  knowledge  communicates  to  mankind 
that  portion  of  truth  which  He  has  laid  witliin  the  reach  of  their  natural 
faculties.     Hum.  Understand.,  B.  iv.,  c.  19,  1 4. 


188  THE    OFFICE    OF    REASON 

of  Israel  is  not  a  man  tliat  He  should  lie,  or  the  son  of  man 
that  He  should  repent.  The  distinction  between  faith  and 
the  ordinary  forms  of  assent  is  not  in  the  ultimate  ground 
of  certainty — that  is  the  same  in  all  cases — but  the  methods 
by  which  it  is  reached.  Faith  reaches  it  immediately, 
having  Divine  revelation  for  its  object;  in  other  cases  it 
is  reached  through  the  medium  of  those  laM'S  which  God 
has  impressed  upon  the  mental  constitution.  Hence  it 
would  seem  that  faith,  being  less  remote  from  the  ultimate 
ground  of  certainty,  is  more  excellent  than  knowledge  or 
opinion.  As  Locke  has  shown  that  demonstration  is  in- 
ferior to  intuition,^  the  successive  steps  of  proof  increas- 
ing the  j)Ossibilities  of  deception  and  mistake,  so  in  all 
cases  in  which  the  testimony  of  God  is  only  mediately  per- 
ceived the  exposure  to  fallacy  is  in  proportion  to  the  num- 
ber of  comparisons  employed.  When,  consequently,  any 
doctrine  is  known  to  be  a  matter  of  Divine  revelation,  "  if 
we  will  truly  consider  it,  more  worthy  is  it  to  believe  than 
to  know  as  we  now  know."^  There  can,  strictly  speaking, 
be  no  improbabilities  in  it.  And  however  it  may  appear 
to  contradict  the  sentiments  and  opinions  we  have  cher- 
ished, yet  "the  prerogative  of  God  extendeth  as  well  to 
the  reason  as  to  the  will  of  man ;  so  that,  as  we  are  to  obey 
His  law,  though  we  find  a  reluctation  in  our  will,  so  we  ai-e 
to  believe  His  word,  though  we  find  a  reluctation  iu  our 
reason."^  To  prefer  the  deductions  of  philosophy  to  a 
Divine  revelation  is  to  relinquish  the  sun  for  the  stars,  to 
"imitate,"  as  Perrot  expresses  it,  "the  conduct  of  the  Cynic, 

1  See  this  matter  very  clearly  discussed  in  Hum.  Underetand.,  B.  iv.,  c. 
2,  ??  4-9-  Much  of  the  reasoning  in  these  sections  is  applicable  to  the  sub- 
ject discussed  in  the  text. 

*  Bacon,  Advancement  of  Learning :  Works,  Montagu's  Edition,  vol. 
ii.,  p.  299.  Bacon  reaches  the  conclusion  by  a  process  of  argument  dif- 
ferent from  that  in  the  text.  "For  in  knowledge,"  says  lie,  "man's  mind 
suffereth  from  sense,  but  in  belief  it  suffereth  from  spirit,  such  a  one  as 
it  lioldeth  for  more  authorized  than  itself,  and  so  suffereth  from  the 
worthier  agent." 

s  Bacon,  Advancement  of  Learning :  Works,  vol.  ii.,  p.  209,  Mont. 
Edition. 


IX    REGARD    TO    REVELATION.  189 

who,  not  contented  with  the  liglit  of  the  sun,  took  a  candle 
at  noonday  to  search  for  a  good  man." 

But  the  true  question  is,  not  whether  an  humble  submis- 
sion of  the  understanding,  when  God  speaks  and  His  words 
are  rightly  a^jprehended,  be  the  imperative  duty  of  man — 
of  this  there  can  be  no  doubt — but,  What  is  the  office  of 
reason  in  those  cases  in  which  the  reality  of  the  revelation 
remains  yet  to  be  proved,  and  the  interpretation  of  the  doc- 
trine remains  yet  to  be  settled? — the  office  of  reason,  not 
simply  as  a  faculty  of  the  mind,  but  as  furnished  with  the 
lights  of  experience,  the  inductions  of  science  and  the 
conclusions  of  philosophy?  Is  its  own  wisdom  the  rule  by 
which  a  pretended  revelation  must  be  tried  or  a  pretended 
hiterpretation  justified  or  condemned?  Is  it  competent  to 
judge  of  the  doctrines — the  things  which  profess  to  be 
revealed — either  for  the  purpose  of  refuting,  from  their  sup- 
posed absurdity  and  falsehood,  the  claims  of  the  system 
which  contains  them,  or,  what  is  the  same  in  principle,  for 
the  purpose  of  invalidating,  upon  the  same  grounds,  the 
exegesis  which  derives  them  from  a  record  confessed  to  be 
Divine?  This  is  the  question  which  we  propose  briefly  to 
discuss. 

The  origin  and  perj)lexity  of  this  question,  it  deserves  to 
be  remarked,  are  due  to  the  fall  of  man.  Had  he  retained 
his  integrity,  the  operations  of  his  reason  would  have  been 
uniformly  right,  his  perceptions  of  truth  clear  and  uncloud- 
ed, and  no  contradiction  could  ever  have  been  suspected 
between  his  deductions  from  the  light  of  nature  and  the 
express  communications  of  God.  As  a  finite  creature  his 
knowledge  would  necessarily  have  been  limited ;  he  would 
have  been  subject  to  ignorance,  but  not  to  error,  and  what- 
ever accessions  the  Deity  in  His  goodness  might  have  chosen 
to  impart  would  have  been  felt  to  harmonize  with  his  pre- 
vious attainments.  But  darkness  of  mind  is  the  sad  inher- 
itance of  sin.  The  irregular  influences  to  which  the  Fall 
has  exposed  us,  the  deceitfuliiess  of  all  our  measures  of 
truth  when  we  pass  the  limits  of  intuition  and  demonstra- 


190  THE   OFFICE   OF    REASON 

tion,  the  turbulence  of  passion,  the  force  of  habit  and  tlie 
ascendency  of  education, — all  combine  to  warp  the  under- 
standing, make  us  confound  prejudices  and  principles,  and 
mistake  the  application  of  right  and  A^Tong.  So  great  is 
the  danger,  if  the  prerogative  be  accorded  to  reason  to  judge 
of  revelation,  of  the  rejection  of  its  doctrines  because  they 
contradict  the  shallow  philosophy  and  false  notions  of  things 
which  have  been  imbibed  from  the  schools,  insinuated  by 
custom  or  adopted  without  examination,  and  which,  from 
long  familiarity,  are  possessed  of  the  authority  of  self- 
evident  maxims,  that  distinguished  writers,^  particularly  in 
modern  times,  since  the  rise  of  philosophical  infidelity,  have 
insisted,  with  more  zeal  than  discretion,  upon  the  external 
evidences  of  Christianity  as  the  only  ones  which,  in  the  first 
instance,  we  are  at  liberty  to  examine.  Not  that  they  sup- 
pose there  is  anything  unreasonable  in  the  Bible;  on  the 
contrary,  could  it  be  ascertained  to  them  that  right  reason, 
and  not  prejudice  and  error  under  the  name  of  reason, 
should  sit  in  judgment  upon  it,  their  objections  to  a  candid 
investigation  of  the  internal  evidences  as  an  impoi'tant 
branch  of  the  inquiry  into  its  Divine  authority  would 
probably  be  removed.  They  are  not  willing,  however,  to 
run  the  risk  of  having  a  true  doctrine  condemned  because 
it  contradicts  a  false  proposition,  nor  of  having  a  true  rev- 
elation rejected  because  it  contradicts  a  false  philosophy. 
Whatever,  they  justly  conclude,  proves  any  system  to  have 
emanated  from  God,  proves  at  the  same  time  that  its  con- 
tents are  worthy  of  His  character,  and  that  all  objections 
to  them  as  foolish,  inconsistent  or  absurd  must  be  presump- 
tuous and  vain. 

But  as  internal  improbabilities  weaken  external  proof, 
they  ought  to  have  shown  that  the  evidence  of  revelation 
can  be  considered  as  complete  before  the  preliminary  point 
is  settled — that  there  is  nothing  on  the  face  of  it  to  con- 
tradict its  pretensions.     We  would  not  assert,  though  we 

^  Bishop  Wilson,  for  example,  in  his  Critique  on  Butler's  Analogy,  and 
Van  Mildert  in  his  Boyle  Lectures. 


IX    REGARD   TO    REVELATION.  191 

have  heard  the  proposition  ingeniously  maintained,  that, 
according  to  the  natural  order  of  thought,  the  first  inquiry 
is  obviously  into  the  character  of  that  which  claims  to  be 
Divine,  and  then  into  the  credentials  or  external  signs  by 
which  its  claims  are  authenticated ;  but  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  it  is  the  course  actually  adopted  by  the  great  majority 
of  Christendom,  who,  in  rejecting  the  corrupt  systems  of 
religion  that  obtain  in  the  world,  are  not  governed  by  the 
insufficiency  and  defects  of  the  proof,  but  the  grossness  of 
the  doctrine  and  the  looseness  of  the  precepts. 

Rome  appeals  to  miracles.  Every  saint  in  her  calen- 
dar, by  his  faith  when  living  or  his  bones  when  dead,  has 
wrought  wonders,  according  to  the  Popish  legends,  anal- 
ogous to  those  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles ;  and  yet  who 
that  believes  the  Bible  would  not  feel  amply  justified  in 
discarding  the  authority  of  the  Pope  and  the  dogmas  of  his 
sect,  because  they  contradict  Christianity,  without  being 
able  to  prove  the  fabulousness  of  monkish  marvels  or  to 
expose  the  fraud  which  has  attempted  to  palm  them  on  the 
world  ?  The  internal  evidence  condemns  them.  Few  take 
the  trouble,  and  none  feel  themselves  bound,  to  examine 
the  credentials  of  Rome,  Mohammed  or  Smith.  It  is 
enough  that  they  come  to  us  with  a  lie  in  their  mouths. 
They  teach  what  we  know  to  be  false,  and  no  amount  of 
external  evidence  can  make  that  Divine  which  is  eminently 
characteristic  of  the  Devil.  Either,  then,  the  rejection  of 
the  Popish  and  Mohammedan  impostures  by  the  mass  of 
Protestants  has  been  prematurely  made,  or  the  investiga- 
tion of  internal  evidences  is  a  legitimate  subject  of  inquiry, 
where  the  question  is  yet  to  be  decided  whether  a  system 
which  professes  to  be  revealed  is  really  from  God.  Accord- 
ing to  the  reasoning  of  Bishop  Wilson,  in  his  Critique  upon 
Butler's  Analogy,  no  religion  can,  in  the  first  instance,  be 
self-condemned.  The  credentials  must  be  shown  to  be  spu- 
rious before  the  doctrines  can  be  convicted  of  falsehood. 
"  The  external  evidences,"  says  he,  "  are  those  which  should 
be  first  studied.     Indeed  they  are  the  only  ones  that  can 


192  THE   OFFICE   OF    REASOX 

be  considered  in  the  first  instance  as  essential,  because"  they 
undertake  to  show  the  credentials  of  the  messenger  who 
professes  to  come  with  a  revelation  from  heaven.  We  have 
no  right  to  go  farther  than  this  in  the  first  place.  The 
moment  the  messenger  is  sufficiently  proved  to  have  Divine 
credentials,  we  have  but  one  duty  left — that  of  receiving 
and  obeying  his  message,  that  of  reading  and  meditating  on 
the  revelation  itself,  in  order  to  conform  ourselves  to  it  with 
devout  and  cheerful  submission.  We  have  no  right  at  all 
to  examine  the  nature  of  the  discoveries  or  doctrines  or  pre- 
cepts of  Christianity  [and  of  course  of  no  other  system  pro- 
fessing to  be  a  revelation]  with  the  view  of  determining 
whether  they  seem  to  us  becoming  the  wisdom  of  God  and 
agreeable  to  the  reason  of  man.  It  is  proved  that  the  rev- 
elation is  from  heaven ;  this  is  enough."  ^ 

According  to  this  principle,  a  plain,  unlettered  believer 
may  be  hopelessly  entangled  in  the  decrees  of  Councils  and 
the  edicts  of  Popes,  how  palpably  soever  they  contradict  the 
Word  of  God  and  his  own  experience  as  a  child  of  grace. 
They  profess  to  be  a  message  from  heaven,  and  produce 
credentials  of  the  Divine  commission  or  infollibility  of  the 
church  in  pretended  prodigies  and  wonders  which  from  his 
circumstances  and  education  he  cannot  be  expected,  by 
external  proofs,  to  convict  of  forgery.  As  he  is  not  at  lib- 
erty "to  examine  the  nature  of  the  discoveries  or  doctrines" 
that  are  taught,  he  cannot  deny  but  that  these  accounts  may 
be  true.  The  church,  consequently,  may  be  infallible,  and 
the  dogmas  which  disgust  him  may  be  Divine.  The  Apos- 
tles insisted  upon  a  very  different  rule  from  that  of  the 
Bishop.  "Beloved,  believe  not  every  spirit,"  says  John,^ 
"  but  try  the  spirits,  whether  they  are  of  God ;  because 
many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the  Avorld."  But 
how  are  these  impostors  to  be  detected  and  exposed  ?  By 
demanding  their  commission,  examining  their  credentials 

1  Critique  on  Butler's  Analogy,  prefixed  to  the  Analogy — sixth  Glasgow 
Edition,  pp.  86,  87. 

2  1  John  iv.  1,  2. 


IN   REGARD   TO    REVELATION.  193 

and  insisting  solely  upon  the  external  proofs  of  their  apos- 
tleship?  Nothing  of  the  kind.  John  remands  us  to  the 
doctrine  as  the  decisive  test  of  spurious  and  true  revelations. 
"  Hereby  know  ye  the  Spirit  of  God :  Every  spirit  that  con- 
fesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  is  of  God ;  and 
every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in 
the  flesh  is  not  of  God."  "  If  there  come  any  unto  you," 
says  this  same  Apostle^  in  guarding  against  the  deceivers 
who  were  entered  into  the  world,  "  and  bring  not  this  doc- 
trine"— whatever  else  he  may  bring,  "after  the  working 
of  Satan  with  all  power  and  signs  and  lying  wonders" — 
"receive  him  not  into  your  house,  neither  bid  him  God- 
speed." "  But  though  we  or  an  angel  from  heaven,"  says 
Paul,^  "  preach  any  other  Gospel  unto  you  than  that  ye  have 
received,  let  him  be  accursed,"  It  is  remarkable  that  the 
New  Testament  nowhere  insists — which  it  must  have  done 
upon  the  hypothesis  of  Bishop  Wilson — on  the  insufficiency 
of  external  proofs  as  the  decisive  test  of  imposture.  The 
doctrine,  and  the  doctrine  alone,  is  made  the  turning-point 
of  the  argument.  The  directions  of  the  Apostles  were 
founded  upon  the  obvious  principle  that  one  truth  cannot 
contradict  another ;  and  therefore  whatever  contradicted  the 
Scriptures,  which  were  hiown  to  be  truth,  carried  upon  its 
face  the  impression  of  falsehood.  It  was  not  because  the 
Scriptures  are  a  Divine  revelation  that  they  were  made  the 
touchstone  for  trying  the  spirits,  but  because,  being  a  Divine 
revelation,  they  are  necessarily  and  infallibly  true.  The 
proposition  is  universal  that  whatever  is  repugnant  to  a 
known  truth,  no  matter  what  may  be  the  method  by  Avhich 
that  truth  is  ascertained  to  us — whether  by  the  oracles 
of  God,  intuition,  demonstration  or  experience — cannot  be 
Divine;^  and  the  application  of  this  principle  presupposes 

1  2  John  V.  10.  2  Gji].  i.  g. 

3  Vide  Locke,  Hum.  Understand.,  B.  iv.,  c.  18,  I  5.  "At  snpposito," 
says  Witsius,  "  ista  de  quibus  disseniimus  Kationis  axiomata  pro  veris  ac 
certis  comperta  esse,  et  ab  ipso  Deo,  nobis  per  Rationem  jireformata  ;  quura 
verum  vero  non  possit  esse  contrarium,  uti  nee  Deus  sibi  ipsi,  consequens 
est,  nvinquam  Deum  supernaturali  revelatione  aliquid  liomini  patcfacere, 
Vol.  in.— 1.3 


194  THE   OFFICE   OF    REASON 

the  right,  which  Bishop  Wilson  denies,  to  examine  the 
nature  of  the  doctrines,  discoveries  or  precepts  which  pro- 
fess to  be  from  heaven.  Even  the  Papists,  who  of  all  men 
are  most  concerned  to  establish  the  coexistence  of  repugnant 
truths,  admit — with  the  exception  of  a  few  Schoolmen,  who 
have  taught,  the  consistency  of  the  same  things  being  the- 
ologically true  and  philosophically  false,  or  philosophically 
true  and  theologically  false — that  to  eiFect  contradictions  is 
not  an  element  of  the  power  of  God/  But  if  the  right  to 
interrogate  the  record  be  denied,  admissions  of  this  sort  are 
nothing  worth. 

The  argument  from  abuse  is  always  suspicious,  and  if  we 
are  to  be  deterred  from  the  legitimate  exercise  of  reason  on 
the  internal  evidences  of  revelation  by  the  danger  of  apply- 
ing false  measures  as  the  standard  of  judgment,  the  same 
plea  might  be  pressed  with  no  little  plausibility  against  the 
investigation  of  the  external  evidences  which  would  leave 
us  without  the  possibility  of  any  reasonable  faith  at  all. 
The  Greeks  looked  at  the  doctrine  and  pronounced  the  Gospel 
to  be  foolishness,  but  it  is  forgotten  that  the  Jews  looked 
at  the  miracles  and  pronounced  them  to  be  inadequate. 
The  Greeks  sought  wisdom,  the  Jews  required  a  sign.  The 
Greek  turned  away  from  Christ  because  philosophy  con- 
demned Him  ;  the  Jew  because  the  sign  which  he  demanded 
had  not  been  vouchsafed.  The  one  abused  his  reason  in  the 
field  of  internal  evidence ;  the  other  in  the  field  of  external 
evidence.  Both  were  wrong  in  the  abuse,  but  why  the  one 
had  not  as  much  right  to  examine  the  message  as  the  other 
tlie  credentials  of  the  messenger,  or  why  a  privilege  should 
be  denied  to  the  one  because  it  was  abused,  while  it  is  still 

quod  repugnet  veritatibus  per  se  notis,  sive  rectse  rationis  dictamini. 
Atqiie  hactenus  ilia  axiomata  valere  qnodammodo  pro  norma  possunt,  ut 
nihil  recipiatur  tanquam  a  Deo  revelatum,  quod  principiis  natura  cognitis 
revera  contrarium  est."     De  Usu  et  Abusu  Kat.,  ^  xv. 

1  Denique  est  primum  principium  in  lamine  natura?:  Omne  est,  aut 
nonest;  quo  sublato  tollitur  omnis  cognitio.  Itaque  etiam  adversarii  in 
hoc  conveniunt,  id  non  posse  fieri  quod  iiuplicat  contradictionem.  Bel- 
larra.,  De  Sac.  Euch.  Lib.  iii.,  e.  ii.,  sub.  fin. 


IN    REGARD    TO    REVELATION.  195 

accorded  to  the  otiier  notwithstanding  its  abuse,  does  not 
appear. 

Bishop  Butler,  who  has  conckisively  demonstrated  "  that 
objections  against  Christianity  as  distinguished  from  objec- 
tions against  its  evidence  are  frivolous,"  has  expressed  him- 
self with  his  characteristic  caution  and  sobriety  in  defining 
the  relations  of  Reason  to  Revelation.  He  is  far,  however, 
from  endorsing  the  doctrine  of  Bishop  Wilson.  "  I  express 
myself  with  caution,"  says  he,^  "  lest  I  should  be  mistaken 
to  vilify  reason,  which  is  indeed  the  only  faculty  we  have 
wherewith  to  judge  concerning  anything,  even  revelation 
itself,  or  be  misunderstood  to  assert  that  a  supposed  revela- 
tion cannot  be  proved  false  from  internal  characters.  For 
it  may  contain  clear  immoralities  or  contradictions,  and 
either  of  these  would  prove  it  false.  Nor  will  I  take  upon 
me  to  affirm  that  nothing  else  can  possibly  render  any  sup- 
posed revelation  incredible." 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  this  distinguished  prelate,  who 
as  a  thinker  deserves  the  title  of  Judicious  incomparably 
better  than  Hooker,  has  not  attempted  to  draw  the  line 
between  the  use  and  the  abuse  of  reason,  though  his  senti- 
ments may  perhaps  be  collected  from  a  careful  attention  to 
the  tenor  and  spirit  of  the  chapter  from  which  the  above 
extract  is  taken.  We  can  only  say  that  that  chapter,  in 
connection  with  some  passages,  to  which  we  shall  afterwards 
allude,  in  Taylor's  Ductor  Dubitantium,  has  suggested  to 
us  the  views  which  we  are  about  to  submit. 

We  lay  it  down,  then,  as  a  general  principle,  that  the 
competency  of  reason  to  judge  in  any  case  is  the  measure 
of  its  right.  This  competency  may  be  actual  or  potential — 
actual,  when  we  are  possession  of  the  knowledge  requisite 
to  the  formation  of  a  sound  opinion ;  potential,  when  though 
not  in  actual  possession  of  it,  we  are  able  to  acquire  it. 
This  general  principle,  which  is  only  another  statement 
of  the  proposition  that  contradictions  can  never  be  both 
true,  involves  in  its  application  a  double  distinction  of  rev- 
^  Analogy,  Part  II.,  c.  3. 


196  THE    OFFICE    OF    REASOX 

elation  and  a  corresponding  distinetio]!  in  tlie  office  of 
reason. 

Revelation  may  be  contemplated  as  imparting  to  us  truths 
which  eye  hath  not  seen  nor  ear  heard,  neither  have  entered 
into  the  heart  of  man  to  conceive,  which  "  descend  to  us 
immediately  from  heaven,  and  communicate  with  no  princi- 
ple, no  matter,  no  conclusion  here  below,"  or,  as  proclaim- 
ing upon  Divine  authority  what  we  were  capable  of  dis- 
covering without  the  aid  of  inspiration.  In  other  words, 
revelation  may  be  regarded,  according  to  its  subjects,  as 
either  supernatural  or  natural.  "  Everything  in  Scripture," 
says  Taylor,^  "  is  not,  in  the  divided  sense,  a  matter  of 
faith" — that  is,  the  Scripture  contains  some  propositions 
which  are  intuitively  evident  wdthout  revelation ;  others 
which  reason  can  demonstrate  from  premises  furnished  by 
our  natural  faculties ;  and  others  still  which  lie  beyond  the 
province  of  nature,  are  "  derivatives  from  heaven  and  com- 
municate not  at  all  with  the  principles  of  philosophy"  or 
science.  The  supernatural  is  that  which  alone  is  strictly 
and  properly  revelation;  the  natural  is  confirmed,  but  not 
made  known,  by  the  Divine  testimony. 

This  distinction  betwixt  the  supernatural  and  the  natural 
we  conceive  to  be  important,  not  merely  as  it  serves  to  give 
clearer  views  in  reference  to  the  office  of  reason,  but  as  it 
equally  serves  to  remove  some  popular  objections,  sedu- 
lously inculcated  by  Papists,  to  the  universal  reading  of  the 
Scriptures.  The  obscurity  which  is  alleged  to  render  them 
unfit  for  indiscriminate  perusal  will  be  found  on  examina- 
tion to  lie  for  the  most  part  within  the  province  of  the  nat- 
ural ;  it  is  of  the  earth,  earthy.  Allusions  to  the  events, 
manners,  customs  and  institutions  of  an  age  long  since  past, 
to  places  of  which  no  trace  can  be  found,  to  scenery  which 
is  not  familiar  to  us,  and  to  modes  of  thought  into  which 
we  find  it  difficult  to  enter — all  of  which  were  simple  and 

1  Ductor  Dubitantinm,  Book  I.,  c.  ii.,  Rule  3,  U  21,  22.  This  whole 
Eiilo,  though,  like  all  Taylor's  writings,  very  much  wanting  in  precision 
anil  method,  contains  many  valuable  thoughts. 


IN    REGARD    TO    REVELATION.  197 

natural  to  the  countrymen  and  contemporaries  of  the  sacred 
writers — are  the  sources  of  no  little  perplexity  and  labour 
to  their  modern  readers.  But  these  things  affect  the  cos- 
tume, not  the  substance,  of  revelation — the  body,  not  the 
soul.  Its  life  must  be  sought  in  its  supernatural  discove- 
ries. These  are  its  own  field,  and  whatever  obscurity  attaches 
to  them  presses  as  heavily  upon  the  learned  as  the  unlearned, 
the  clergy  as  the  laity.  All  stand  upon  the  same  level. 
All  are  equally  dependent  upon  God  for  his  Divine  illumi- 
nation ;  none  can  claim  to  be  a  master,  none  should  submit 
as  a  slave.  The  august  mysteries  of  Christianity  are 
revealed  to  the  meek,  however  untutored  in  this  world's 
wisdom,  and  concealed  from  the  wise,  however  skilled  in 
philosophy  and  science.  Here  God  is  the  teacher  and  man 
the  disciple,  and  every  one  in  this  school  must  become  a 
fool  in  order  that  he  may  be  wise.  The  Bible  incidentally 
treats  of  history,  geography  and  ancient  manners,  but  these 
are  not  the  things  which  give  it  its  value.  Christ  crucified 
is  its  great  subject ;  it  is  the  knowledge  of  Him  that  saves 
the  soul,  and  that  knowledge  is  more  accessible  to  the  poor 
and  ignorant  than  to  the  arrogant  disputers  of  this  world. 

But  to  resume  the  immediate  subject  of  discussion  :  the 
office  of  reason  in  the  supernatural  department  of  revela- 
tion may  be  positive,  but  can  never  be  negative ; '  in  the 
natural  it  is  negative,  but  only  to  a  very  limited  extent,  if 
at  all,  positive.  We  use  the  terms  positive  and  negative  to 
indicate  the  nature  of  the  conclusion,  and  not  the  arguments 
by  which  it  is  reached;  that  being  positive  by  which  the 
reality  of  the  revelation  is  affirmed,  and  that  negative  by 
which  it  is  denied.  When  we  say,  therefore,  that  reason 
has  no  negative  jurisdiction  in  regard  to  the  supernatural, 
we  mean  that  it  is  incompetent  to  infer  the  spuriousness  of 
a  pretended  revelation  from  the  nature  of  its  mysteries — that 

1  There  is  one  exception  to  this  rule :  When  a  professed  revolution 
contradicts  itself,  another,  or  one  which  is  known  to  be  real,  then  reason 
has  a  negative  power.  This  exception,  however,  comes  under  the  j^cneral 
principle  on  which  the  rule  is  founded. 


198  THE    OFFICE    OF    REASON 

it  cannot  construct  an  internal  argument,  from  discoveries 
and  doctrines  which  transcend  the  limits  of  natural  attain- 
ment, to  convict  of  falsehood  what  professes  to  be  Divine. 
The  positive  jurisdiction  which,  in  this  department,  we  have 
conceded  to  reason  refers  to  the  perception  of  those  impres- 
sions of  His  character  which  it  is  to  be  expected  God  would 
enstamp  upon  His  AVord,  those  traces  of  power,  wisdom, 
goodness  and  glory  which  proclaim  a  Divine  original  as 
truly  as  the  works  of  nature  or  the  dispensations  of  Provi- 
dence. Every  true  revelation  must  authenticate  itself,  and 
the  only  faculty  through  which  its  reflection  of  the  Divine 
image  can  be  manifested  to  us  is  Reason.  Unenlightened 
by  grace,  it  is  confessedly  incompetent  to  discover  God  in 
His  Word,  and  consequently  never  can  exercise  any  positive 
jurisdiction  until  it  becomes  the  habitation  of  the  Spirit. 
It  is  to  the  called,  and  the  called  alone,  that  Christ  crucified 
is  the  power  of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  God.  The  negative 
power  which  we  have  accorded  to  reason,  in  the  department 
of  the  natural,  implies  that  it  is  competent  to  say,  to  a  cer- 
tain extent,  what  a  revelation  ought  not  to  be,  though  it 
is  not  competent  to  say  what  it  ought  to  be.  It  is  able  here 
to  convict  a  pretended  revelation  of  imposture  by  showing 
that  it  contains  contradictions,  palpable  falsehoods  or  gross 
absurdities,  though  it  cannot  infer  that  a  system  is  truly 
Divine  because  it  is  free  from  objections  which  would  be 
fatal  to  its  credit.  The  sum  of  our  doctrine,  then,  is  that  in 
the  supernatural,  reason  may  prove,  but  cannot  reftite,  the 
claims  of  a  pretended  revelation;  in  the  natural,  it  may 
refute,  but  cannot  establish. 

This  distinction  of  the  use  of  reason,  corresponding  to 
the  division  of  the  subjects  of  revelation,  is  only  an  applica- 
tion of  the  principle  that  the  right  of  reason  to  judge,  in 
any  case,  springs  from  its  competency.  To  justify  a  nega- 
tive judgment  upon  internal  grounds  there  must  be  contra- 
diction to  previous  knowledge.  The  very  idea  of  the  super- 
natural involves  the  supposition  that  its  discoveries  are  new. 
The  field  which  it  oceu})ics  is  inaccessible  to  our  natural 


IN    REGARD    TO    REVELATIOX.  199 

faculties,  and  having  no  previous  informations  of  the  sub- 
jects it  discloses,  we  cannot  condemn  it,  on  accoilnt  of  incon- 
sistency with  known  truth.  The  revelation,  in  this  aspect, 
is  a  source  of  new  ideas,  perfectly  independent  of  every 
other  source,  and  it  is  to  be  expected  that  they  should  dif- 
fer as  widely  from  those  derived  from  experience  as  these, 
in  turn,  differ  among  themselves.  When  truths  beyond  the 
reach  of  nature  are  announced  upon  the  authority  of  God, 
a  new  world  is  opened  to  reason — a  world  of  invisible  real- 
ities and  of  mysterious  things.  All  may  be  strange  and  un- 
expected, as  the  scenes  of  the  moon  or  some  distant  planet 
Avould  be  to  a  traveller  from  earth.  Still,  as  such  a  traveller 
would  be  guilty  of  great  folly  in  refusing  to  credit  his 
senses  because  the  aj^pearances  before  him  differed  from 
those  in  the  world  he  had  left,  so  reason  would  be  guilty 
of  equal  folly  in  rejecting  the  disclosures  of  revelation 
because  they  are  unlike  the  discoveries  of  nature.  We  are 
no  more  competent  to  say  beforehand  what  shall  or  shall 
not  be  revealed  than  we  are  to  pronounce,  independently 
of  experience,  upon  the  species  of  information  which  our 
senses  might  be  expected  to  supply.  The  embryo  in  the 
womb  is  as  capable  of  predicting  what  sort  of  a  world  it 
shall  enter  as  natural  reason  of  predicting  the  things  of  the 
Spirit  of  God.  Revelation,  again,  may  be  likened  to  a  new 
sense  unfolding  to  reason  a  new  field  of  ideas ;  and  it  would 
be  no  less  preposterous  to  discredit  its  testimony  because  it  is 
different  from  that  of  nature  than  it  would  be  to  despise 
the  information  of  the  eye  because  it  differs  from  that  of 
the  ear.  We  have  no  natural  measures  of  supernatural 
mysteries,  and  as  they,  therefore,  cannot  contradict  philosophy 
and  science,  they  cannot  be  judged  by  the  wisdom  of  men. 

The  relation  in  which  we  stand  to  the  supernatural  dis- 
closures of  an  authentic  revelation  is  analogous  to  that 
which,  according  to  the  sublime  aphorism  of  Bacon, ^   Ave 

1  Homo  natural  minister  et  interpres,  tantum  facit  et  intelligit  quantum 
de  naturae  ordine  re  vel  mente  observaverit,  nee  amplius  scit,  aut  potest. 
Nov.  Organ.,  Apli.  I. 


200  THE  OFFICE   OF   REASON 

sustain  to  nature.  As  the  phenomena  of  the  material 
world  are  not  to  be  judged,  but  seen,  so  the  mysteries  of 
heaven  are  not  to  be  judged,  but  apprehended.  Interpre- 
tation is  to  theology  what  observation  and  experiment  are 
to  philosophy.  As  it  is  the  business  of  science  not  to  fabri- 
cate imaginary  worlds  and  dignify  hypotheses  with  the  title 
of  laws,  but  patiently  to  investigate  the  facts  of  nature  as 
they  really  exist,  so  it  is  the  business  of  reason  in  regard  to 
revelation  not  to  form  fantastic  theories  in  relation  to  its 
discoveries,  doctrines  and  institutions,  but  to  interpret  with 
humility  and  digest  with  reverence  what  God  has  chosen  to 
communicate.  The  scope  of  inquiry  in  each  case  is  not 
what  ought  to  be,  but  what  is.  The  facts  of  nature,  reduced 
to  general  expressions  declaring  their  uniformity,  constitute 
laws,  and  these  laws,  arranged  into  system,  constitute  sci- 
ence or  philosophy.  The  facts  of  revelation  are  its  doctrines 
or  mysteries,  and  these  reduced  to  method,  according  to  their 
dependencies  and  connections,  constitute  theology.  Actual 
phenomena  furnish  the  materials  of  the  one ;  the  Word  and 
Oracle  of  God,  the  materials  of  the  other. 

These  seem  to  have  been  the  views  of  Bacon,  who  treats 
revelation  as  an  independent  source  of  new  ideas,  and  con- 
cedes to  reason  the  twofold  use  of  explication  and  inference,^ 
"  the  former,  in  the  conception  and  apprehension  of  the 
mysteries  of  God  to  us  revealed,  the  other,  in  the  inferring 
and  deriving  of  doctrine  and  direction  thereupon."  The 
inference  of  Bacon,  however,  does  not  refer  to  the  inductive 
process  by  which  the  scattered  instructions  of  revelation 
are  collected,  compared  and  digested  into  system,  but  to 
the  application  of  its  principles  to  the  practical  emergencies 
of  life.  It  is  the  inference  of  a  chess-player,  who  deduces 
from  the  positive  laws  of  the  game  the  most  successful 
method  of  regulating  his  movements;  the  inference  of  the 
statesman,  who  devises  the  wisest  schemes  for  the  conduct 
of  the  republic  in  conformity  with  the  maxims  and  priu- 

1  Advancement  of  Learning:  Works,  Montagu's  Edition,  vol.  ii.,  pp. 
301,  302. 


IX    REGARD    TO    REVELATION.  201 

ciples  of  the  Constitution ;  the  inference  of  daily  life,  in 
which  the  general  laws  of  society  are  applied  to  the  circum- 
stances and  conditions  of  men.  It  is  an  office  of  reason,  in 
the  use  of  revelation,  presupposing  that  its  reality  has  been 
proved  and  its  maxims  understood. 

The  doctrine  which  we  have  endeavoured  to  illustrate, 
that  reason  possesses  no  negative  jurisdiction  in  regard  to 
the  mysteries  or  supernatural  facts  of  revelation,  because  it 
possesses  no  previous  knowledge  which  they  can  contradict, 
subverts  the  basis  of  the  whole  system  of  philosophical 
infidelity.  The  corner-stone  of  the  fabric  is  the  com- 
petency of  man  to  determine  beforehand  what  a  revelation 
should  contain.  That,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  it 
deals  with  the  unknown,  and  contemplates  us  in  the  atti- 
tude of  learners  and  not  of  teachers,  of  servants  and  in- 
terpreters and  not  lords  and  masters,  is  a  proposition, 
simple  and  obvious  as  it  is,  which  the  disciples  of  Herbert, 
Bolingbroke  and  Hume  have  entirely  overlooked.  The 
legitimate  conclusion  from  their  principles  is,  either  that 
man  possesses,  in  his  natural  faculties  and  resources,  the 
means  of  omniscience,  or  that  whatever  God  knows  be- 
yond the  reach  of  reason  must  for  ever  remain  an  impene- 
trable secret  with  Himself.  The  Deity,  in  His  oMnipotcnce, 
cannot  impart  ideas  which  "eye  hath  not  seen,  nor  ear 
heard,  neither  have  entered  into  the  heart  of  man."  He 
cannot  open  the  eyes  of  the  blind  nor  unstop  the  ears  of 
the  deaf.  But  if  God  can  indefinitely  unfold  to  us  new 
sources  of  ideas;  if  He  can  lift  the  curtain  which  covers 
the  invisible  from  mortal  eyes;  open  worlds,  peopled  with 
realities,  of  which  fancy  had  never  dreamed;  if  He  can 
impart  to  us  new  senses,  or  illustrate  the  unknown  by 
analogies  borroAved  from  the  present  state,  as  the  form  of 
the  key  is  adapted  to  the  ward  of  the  lock, — then  reve- 
lation may  be  as  real  as  nature,  as  independent  in  its  own 
sphere  and  as  certain   in  its  results.^     Faith    may   be  as 

1  Id  primo  tenendum,  Axiomuta  Eationis  certis  qnibnsdain  circMiin.^cripta 
esse  limitibus,  ultra  qnos  eniti  non  valeant;    ^lysteria  auteni  Fidei  eos 


202  THE    OFFICE    OF    REASON. 

unsuspected  a  means  of  knowledge  as  sense,  consciousness 
or  reason,  and  no  more  to  l)e  condemned  because  it  is 
adjusted  to  no  natural  measure  than  one  sense  is  to  be 
cashiered  because  it  speaks  not  the  same  language  with  its 
neighbour. 

Those,  therefore,  who  deny  the  reality  of  supernatural 
mysteries,  who  confound  what  is  above,  with  what  is  con- 
trary to,  reason,  and  reduce  everything  to  the  level  of 
natural  attainment,  deny  the  reality  of  any  proper  revela- 
tion at  all.  To  be  supernatural  is  to  be  above  reason. 
That  these  mysteries,  however,  can  contain  no  contradic- 
tions to  reason  must  be  obvious  to  the  slightest  reflection. 
Descending  upon  us  immediately  from  heaven,  their  source 
is  the  bosom  of  God;  and  as  they  communicate  with  no 
principles  of  earth,  we  must  take  them  just  as  they  descend 
from  the  fountain  of  truth.  Reason  is  simply  the  eye  to 
apprehend  the  light — the  ear  to  distinguish  the  sound. 
And  the  neio  truths  of  faith  can  no  more  be  contrary  to 
reason  than  new  truths  of  sense,  impressions  of  colour  and 
sound,  in  the  instance  of  the  blind  and  deaf  restored  to  the 
enjoyment  of  their  lost  senses,  can  be  contrary  to  their 
previous  attainments.  All  that  we  can  say  is,  that  reason 
is  furnished  with  new  materials  of  thought,  knows  some- 
thing which  it  did  not  know  before,  is  in  possession  of  a 
class  of  ideas  different  from  anything  to  which  it  had  been 
previously  accustomed.  There  can  be  no  contradiction, 
however,  where  the  terms  are  not  the  same. 

We  have  attributed  to  reason  a  positive  jurisdiction  in 
authenticating  the  claims  of  a  real  revelation  from  the 
nature  of  its  mysteries.  As  we  demonstrate,  in  natural 
theology,  the  being  and  perfections  of  God  from  the  order 
and  beauty  of  His  works,  and  infer  the  relations  which  He 
limites  phirimum  transcendere.  Sic  ut  nequaquam  Ration!  liceat  juvs- 
teria  isthcec  eo  nomine  rejiccre,  quod  niliil  unquam  iis  simile  in  snis  ideis 
ac  notionibus  invenerit.  1  Cor.  ii.  9.  Certe  ct  id  Eatio  docet,  mnlta  in 
Dei  infinitate  et  consilio  ejus  latere,  quw  ipsa  per  se  assequi  non  possit ; 
Deoque  dignum  esse  ea  de  se  revelare  qure  captum  nostrum  superant. 
Witsius,  de  Usu  et  Abusu  Eat.,  §  xx. 


IX    REGARD    TO    REVELATION.  203 

must  sustain  to  the  worlds  He  has  made,  so  the  scheme  of 
Providence,  disclosed  in  revelation,  may,  in  its  majesty  and 
grandeur,  its  harmony,  beneficence  and  purity,  contain 
such  memorials  of  Deity  as  to  render  skepticism  little  less 
than  madness.  In  the  case  of  Christianity,  for  instance, 
the  glory  of  God  is  so  conspicuously  displayed  in  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Gospel  that  to  the  called  it  would  be  as  easy 
to  doubt  the  shining  of  the  sun  in  the  heavens  as  the 
Divine  mission  of  Jesus.  Redemption  is  its  own  witness. 
We  may  study  its  doctrines  and  its  facts  in  their  harmony 
and  connection — we  may  compare  the  end  with  the  means, 
and  discover  the  wisdom  and  the  power,  the  grace  and  love 
Avhich  animate  the  whole.  We  call  it  reasonable,  not  be- 
cause reason  discovered  its  doctrines  or  originated  its  pre- 
cepts, but  because  it  is  consistent  with  itself;  it  is  a  system 
made  up  of  parts,  nicely  adjusted  and  exquisitely  arranged, 
and  not  a  mass  of  insulated,  incoherent,  independent  phe- 
nomena. The  fitness  and  propriety  of  its  provisions,  the 
simplicity  and  scope  of  its  laws,  the  beauty  of  its  rites  and 
the  sublime  purity  of  its  code,  as  information  upon  these 
points  may  be  gathered  from  itself,  are  topics  which  may 
not  only  furnish  legitimate  employment  to  reason,  but  task 
its  highest  powers. 

But  the  execution  of  these  functions  requires  the  illumi- 
nation of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Reason  can  perceive  very  faintly 
the  positive  proofs  which  revelation  carries  on  its  face, 
though,  as  we  shall  afterward  see,  it  may  construct  a  nega- 
tive argument  which,  if  not  sufficient  to  satisfy  faith,  is  suf- 
ficient to  rebuke  unbelief. 

But  what  we  wish  particularly  to  inculcate  here  is,  that 
an  incapacity  of  perceiving  the  impressions  of  Deity  upon 
His  Word  creates  no  presumption  against  the  truth  of  their 
existence.  It  would  only  follow  that  we  are  weak  and 
blind,  and  not  that  the  things  themselves  are  either  false 
or  unreasonable.  We  cannot  reason  from  our  ignorance. 
Though  the  invisible  things  of  God  are  clearly  seen,  being 
understood  bv  the  things  that  are  made,  yet  nuiltitudes  in 


204  THE    OFFICE    OF    REASON 

every  age  have  gone  doAvn  to  tlie  grave  without  being  con- 
ducted to  the  great  Creator  by  the  heavens  which  declare 
His  glory,  and  the  firmament  which  showeth  His  handi- 
work. The  stupidity  of  the  learner  is  no  proof  against  the 
truth  which  he  fails  to  apprehend.  It  remains  certain  to 
reason  and  to  faith  that  God  made  the  worlds,  and  His  finger 
is  conspicuously  displayed  in  their  arrangement  and  govern- 
ment, though  thousands  have  failed  to  recognize  His  hand 
and  to  adore  the  wisdom  which  conducts  the  universe. 
That  the  blind  are  incapable  of  receiving  the  impressions 
of  light  and  colour  is  no  presumption  against  the  existence 
of  either;  and  so  the  glory  of  God  may  be  indelibly  stamped 
upon  the  Gospel,  it  may  reflect  His  image,  display  His  wis- 
dom, and  make  known  the  manifold  riches  of  His  grace, 
and  yet  mortal  ignorance  and  mortal  stupidity  may  fail  to 
apjjrehend  the  fact.  The  light  shineth  in  darkness,  and  the 
darkness  comprehendeth  it  not.  Hence,  it  is  impossible, 
from  the  mysteries  of  revelation,  to  construct  an  internal 
argument  against  it,  though  one  may  be  framed  in  its  fiivour. 
In  addition  to  this,  as  we  have  already  intimated,  there 
are  negative  considerations  suggested  by  the  contents  of 
revelation  which  go  far  to  establish  its  supernatural  preten- 
sions. This  point  has  not  passed  altogether  without  notice 
in  Butler's  masterly  treatise.^  The  argument  consists  in 
showing  that  no  causes,  apart  from  the  interposition  of 
God,  are  adequate  to  explain  the  appearance  or  to  account 
for  the  phenomena  of  thought  involved  in  the  subjects  of 
the  professed  revelation.  One  by  one,  all  natural  solutions 
may  be  removed,  every  supposition  may  be  destroyed,  but 
that  which  ascribes  to  God  the  agency  which  is  claimed. 
If,  for  example,  human  invention  is  alleged  as  a  sufficient 
explanation  of  the  case,  that  may  be  proved  to  be  inade- 
quate by  showing  that  the  materials  which  compose  the  sys- 
tem, either  as  they  separately  exist  or  are  combined  into  a 
whole,  are  not  such  as  could  have  been  suggested  by  any 
conceivable  laws  of  associaticui  to  the  human  mind,  and 
'  See  the  Analogy,  Part  ii.,  chap.  3d,  last  sentence. 


IX    REGARD    TO    REVFXATIOX.  205 

therefore  must  lie  beyond  the  province  of  Imman  ingenuity. 
Such  transcendent  elements  as  the  Trinity,  the  incarnation 
of  the  Son,  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  personal  election,  and 
particular  redemption  are  not  the  ingredients  which  man 
■was  likely  to  use  in  devising  a  system  of  religion.  These 
ideas  never  arose  spontaneously  in  the  human  breast;  they 
are  indeed  so  remote  from  the  ordinary  trains  of  thought  that 
the  authority  of  a  confessed  revelation  finds  it  difficult  to 
subdue  the  remonstrances  of  carnal  reason  against  them. 
The  scheme  of  redemption  as  a  whole,  its  conception  and 
gradual  development,  the  harmony  of  its  doctrines  as  deliv- 
ered in  successive  ages  and  generations  by  patriarchs  and 
prophets,  the  correspondence  of  all  its  dispensations,  and 
its  grand  consummation  in  the  death  of  Jesus  and  the  insti- 
tutions of  the  Gospel, — all  these  exhibit  a  reach  of  thought 
and  an  amplitude  of  purpose  which  we  feel  it  to  be  mockery 
to  chain  to  earth.  The  temple  is  too  grand  and  august  for 
a  puny  architect.  If,  again,  such  a  revelation  should  be 
referred  to  the  Devil,  the  argument  of  our  Saviour  is  ready 
with  overwhelming  force :  a  house  divided  against  itself 
cannot  stand — Satan  cannot  be  expected  to  cast  out  Satan. 
The  moral  tone  of  the  Gospel  is  too  pure  and  elevated,  its 
doctrines  tend  too  evidently  to  promote  the  glory  of  God, 
the  peace  of  society  and  the  good  of  man,  to  have  sprung 
from  hell.  Its  atmosphere  is  too  clear,  its  light  too  bril- 
liant, its  hopes  too  sublime,  to  be  emanations  from  the  pit. 

If  Christianity  should  be  ascribed  to  policy  or  enthusi- 
asm, the  answer  is  also  ready  that  the  effect  does  not  corre- 
spond to  the  cause.  We  are  competent  to  judge  of  the  nat- 
ural operation  of  these  principles,  and  we  trace  none  of  their 
peculiarities  in  the  glorious  Gospel  of  the  blessed  God. 
Christianity,  however,  exists ;  it  is  an  effect  which  must,  like 
ever}^  other,  have  had  some  cause.  And  if  it  can  be  shown 
to  have  sprung  neither  from  earth  nor  hell,  the  conclusion 
is  irresistible  that  its  source  is  the  bosom  of  God.  Such  is 
the  nature  of  that  negative  argument  founded  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  every  effect  must  have  an  adequate  cause,  which 


206  THE   OFFICE   OF    REASON 

reason,  we  think,  is  capable  of  constructing  from  the  acknow- 
ledged phenomena  of  revelation. 

We  have  now,  we  apprehend,  sufficiently  explained  our 
views  in  saying  that  the  office  of  reason  in  regard  to  super- 
natural mysteries  can  never  be  negative.  It  cannot  con- 
demn them,  because  it  has  no  law  by  which  to  try  them ;  it 
is  not  a  fit  judge,  because  not  a  competent  judge.  It  can- 
not say  beforehand  what  a  revelation  should  be,  how  it 
should  be  given,  what  it  should  contain,  and  with  what  evi- 
dence it  ought  to  be  attended.  At  the  same  time,  it  may 
study  these  mysteries  and  find  God  in  them,  while  it  pos- 
sesses the  power  of  proving  upon  other  grounds  that  they 
could  have  originated  from  no  other  source.  The  conclu- 
sion is  most  important  that  no  mysteries  ever  can  create  the 
slightest  presumption  against  the  Divine  original  of  the  sys- 
tem which  contains  them,  while  they  may  contain  irresist- 
ible evidence,  both  negative  and  positive,  of  its  truth. 

The  office  of  reason  in  relation  to  those  parts  of  revela- 
tion which  communicate  with  principles  of  natural  know- 
ledge we  have  defined  to  be  negative  and  not  positive,  or, 
if  positive  at  all,  only  to  a  very  limited  degree.  Every  sys- 
tem, and  particularly  every  written  system  professing  to  be 
Divine,  with  which  we  are  acquainted,  contains  not  only  its 
mysteries  or  supernatural  facts,  but  allusions  direct  or  indi- 
rect to  a  variety  of  subjects  which  fiill  within  the  limits  of 
the  human  faculties.  Geography,  history  and  philosophy, 
the  manners,  customs,  institutions  of  a  distant  age,  the 
scenery  and  productions  of  other  lands,  and  especially  the 
appearances  of  human  nature  in  its  moral,  social  and  politi- 
cal condition  at  the  period  of  the  writers,  are  embraced  in 
the  Sacred  Records,  and  the  statements  concerning  them 
attested  by  the  same  inspiration  ^y]lich  covers  the  mysteries 
of  the  faith.  In  regard  to  these  matters,  the  human  mind, 
according  to  the  extent  and  accuracy  of  its  knowledge,  is 
capable  of  judging  between  truth  and  falsehood,  and  any 
real  inconsistency  with  fact  is  evidently  fatal  to  the  plea  of  in- 
spiration.    A  record  pretending  to  this  high  character,  which 


IN    REGARD    TO    REVELATION.  207 

should  contain  anachronisms  or  geographical  mistakes,  which 
should  blunder  in  its  political  or  social  allusions,  reason 
could  not  hesitate  to  brand  with  the  stigma  of  forgery. 
While,  however,  error  in  these  matters  would  be  evidently- 
fatal,  the  strictest  fidelity  and  truth  would  create  no  neces- 
sary inference  of  Divine  interposition.  Human  causes 
would  be  adequate  to  explain  the  phenomenon,  without  an 
appeal  to  the  supernatural  agency  of  God.  Reason,  there- 
fore, can  give  a  negative,  but  not  a  positive  decision ;  it  can 
say  what  is  not,  but  not  what  is,  from  God.  If  there  be  any 
exception  to  this  principle,  it  is  in  the  department  of  moral 
inquiry,  though  Bacon  seems  to  reckon  the  purity  of  the 
Gospel  among  its  supernatural  facts.^  He  grounds  upon 
the  Word  and  Oracle  of  God,  "  not  only  those  points  of 
fliith  which  concern  the  great  mysteries  of  the  Deity,  of  the 
creation,  of  the  redemption,  but  likewise  those  which  con- 
cern the  law  moral  truly  interpreted."  It  is  revealed  in 
the  Scriptures  with  a  degree  of  perfection  to  which  the  light 
of  nature  cannot  aspire,  and  though  conscience  is  a  "sparkle 
of  the  purity  of  man's  first  estate,"  yet  in  his  present  fallen 
condition  it  is  no  adequate  guide,  no  perfect  rule ;  it  can 
"check  the  vice,  but  not  inform  the  virtue."  Hence,  he 
concludes  that  the  doctrine  of  religion,  as  well  moral  as  mys- 
tical, is  not  to  be  attained  but  by  inspiration  and  revelation 
from  God. 

That  the  standard  of  rectitude  displayed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures is  beyond  the  capacities  of  fallen  man  to  discover, 
may,  as  a  general  truth,  be  admitted,  and  yet  the  positive 
argument  arising  from  this  fact  seems  to  us  to  rise  no 
higher  than  a  presumption,  since  it  is  impossible  to  fix  the 
limit  to  which  the  light  of  nature  might  have  conducted  us 
without  the  guidance  of  revelation.  The  subject  of  morals 
is  not  above  reason,  considered  in  itself,  apart  from  the 
consequences  of  the  fall.  If  man  had  never  sinned,  his 
moral  vision  would  always  have  been  clear.  His  incapacity, 
in  his  present  state,  to  frame  a  perfect  system  of  duty  does 
^  Advancement  of  Learning:  "Works  (Montagu),  vol.  ii.,  p.  300. 


208  THE   OFFICE   OF    REASON 

not  pertain  to  nature,  as  such,  but  to  nature  as  fallen  and 
corrupt.  It  is  an  accidental  and  not  an  essential  defect. 
The  incapacity,  however,  to  discover  the  mysteries  of  religion 
is  absolutely  natural.  The  angels  are  as  much  dependent 
upon  revelation  for  the  sublime  facts  of  redemption  as  mau 
himself.  There  are  deep  things  of  God,  Avhich  none  can 
penetrate  but  His  own  eternal  Spirit,  and  none  can  know 
them  but  those  to  whom  they  are  graciously  revealed. 
These  unfathomable  depths  are  evidently  supernatural,  in 
a  sense  which  cannot  attach  to  any  code  of  morals,  however 
pure  and  exalted. 

As  man,  even  in  his  fallen  state,  possessing  a  moral  na- 
ture, possesses  necessarily  some  knowledge  of  moral  dis- 
tinctions, and  as  this  knowledge  is  unquestionably  capable 
of  being  enlarged  and  refined,  we  can  never  be  certain  that 
any  particular  moral  discovery  could  not  have  been  the 
offspring  of  nature.  There  may  be  violent  presumptions 
against  its  natural  origin,  arising  from  the  condition  of  those 
who  announce  it — their  want  of  education,  their  early 
habits,  prejudices  and  associations,  and  from  the  superiority 
which  it  evinces  to  the  spirit  and  attainments  of  the  age 
and  country  in  which  it  first  made  its  appearance.  These 
and  such  like  considerations  are  entitled  to  no  little  weight ; 
but  still,  as  we  cannot  definitely  say  hoAV  far  nature  might 
go,  we  cannot  determine  where  the  necessity  of  a  revelation 
begins.  Immorality  is  clear  proof  that  the  system  contain- 
ing it  is  not  Divine,  but  a  high  morality  is  not  decisive 
evidence  to  the  contrary.  It  has  great  force  in  removing 
objections,  in  showing  that  the  doctrine  is  not  unworthy  of 
God,  and  as  concurring  with  other  proofs  it  may  make 
them  amount  to  a  moral  demonstration;  but,  in  itself  con- 
sidered, we  are  inclined,  with  Warburton,  to  rank  it  no 
higher  than  a  presumption.^     The  credibility  of  the  sacred 

1  Divine  Legation,  B.  ix.,  chap.  5.  His  words  are :  "  But  in  reverence 
to  Troth,  I  hold  myself  obliged  to  own,  that  in  ray  opinion  the  reason- 
ableness of  a  doctrine  pretended  to  come  immediately  from  God  is  of 
itself  alone  no  proof,  but  a  presumption  only,  of  such  its  Divine  original ; 


IN    REGARD   TO   REVELATION.  209 

writers — tlie  reality  and  lionesty  of  their  convictions — may 
be  establislied  by  their  moral  tone;  and  these,  establislied, 
establish  the  facts  to  which  they  bear  witness,  and  these,  in 
turn,  the  Divine  original  of  their  religion;  but  morality 
here  is  not  a  direct  proof  of  inspiration,  but  the  means  of 
fortifying  the  direct  proof  The  internal  evidences  upon 
which  alone  we  would  confidently  rely  are  those  drawn 
from  the  mysteries  of  revelation — its  supernatural  facts  and 
discoveries.  Here  God  must  be  seen  and  confessed.  There 
can  be  no  suspicion  of  nature's  agency.  The  grand  facts  of 
redemption — these  are  the  glor}^  of  the  Gospel,  and  its  in- 
ward witness  of  a  heavenly  birth. 

The  supernatural  facts  of  revelation  may,  however,  react 
upon  morals,  by  the  addition  of  new  and  impressive  sanc- 
tions to  its  duties,  and  by  enlarging  the  sphere  of  moral 
obligation.  It  is  a  low  and  narrow  view  of  Christianity 
which  those  have  been  accustomed  to  take  who,  anxious 
to  exalt  Natural  Religion  upon  its  ruins,  have  artfully  de- 
picted it  as  a  system  of  ceremonial  rites  and  positive  observ- 
ances. It  reveals,  they  tell  us,  no  new  duties  essentially 
moral  in  their  character;  and  its  chief  value  consists  not 
in  its  own  peculiarities,  but  in  the  relation  which  they  bear 
to  the  great  doctrines  of  Natural  Eeligion.  As  containing 
an   authoritative   statement  of  what   the    light  of   reason 

because,  though  the  excellence  of  a  doctrine  (even  allowing  it  surpass  all 
other  moral  teaching  whatever)  may  show  it  to  be  worthy  of  God,  yet, 
from  that  sole  excellence,  we  cannot  certainly  conclude  that  it  came  im- 
mediately from  Him,  since  we  know  not  to  what  heights  of  moral  know- 
ledge the  human  understanding,  unassisted  by  inspiration,  may  arrive. 
Not  even  our  full  experience,  that  all  the  wisdom  of  Greece  and  Kome 
comes  extremely  short  of  the  wisdom  of  the  Gospel,  can  support  us  in 
concluding  with  certainty  that  this  Gospel  was  sent  immediately  from 
God.  We  can  but  very  doubtfully  guess  what  excellence  may  be  produced 
by  a  well-formed  and  well-cultivated  mind,  further  blessed  with  a  vigor- 
ous temperament  and  a  happy  organization  of  the  body.  The  amazement 
into  which  Sir  Isaac  Newton's  discoveries  in  nature  threw  the  learned 
world,  as  soon  as  men  became  able  to  comprehend  their  truth  and  utility, 
sufficiently  shows  what  little  conception  it  had  tliat  the  human  faculties 
could  ever  arise  so  high  or  spread  so  wide." 
Vol.  III.— U 


210  THE   OFFICE  OF   REASON 

might  have  been  able  to  discover  without  it,  and  as  diffus- 
ing, by  the  judicious  institutions  of  its  ministry  and  ordi- 
nances, and  impressing,  in  the  regularly  recurring  seasons 
of  its  worship,  the  solemn  obligations  of  nature  which  men 
are  prone  to  overlook  and  forget,  revelation,  they  confess,  is 
not  to  be  despised.  Still,  its  highest  office  is  to  anticipate 
the  slow  discoveries  of  reason,  to  supersede  the  excuses  of 
indolence  and  ignorance,  and  to  make  nature  effective  by  an 
appeal  to  the  awful  majesty  of  God. 

The  shallow  sophistry  of  these  pretenders  in  theology, 
is  at  once  refuted^  by  the  fact  that  the  great  end  of  re- 
demption is  not  to  fortify  nature,  but  to  recover  it  from 
the  ruin  and  degradation  of  the  Fall :  it  is  a  scheme  of  sal- 
vation— of  life  to  the  dead,  liberty  to  the  captives  and  the 
opening  of  the  prison  to  them  that  are  bound.     In  unfold- 

1  This  subject  is  very  ably  treated  in  tlie  first  chapter  of  the  Second 
Part  of  Butler's  Analogy.  The  distinction,  however,  which  Butler 
draws  between  natural  and  supernatural  religion  does  not  strike  us  as 
being  strictly  just.  "  The  essence  of  natural  religion "  he  places  in  re- 
ligious regards  to  the  Father;  "the  essence  of  revealed,"  or,  as  we  would 
prefer  to  call  it,  supernatural,  "  religion,  in  religious  regards  to  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Ghost."  Now  we  apprehend  that  the  difference  betwixt  them 
is  not  in  the  objects  to  which  they  are  respectively  directed,  but  in  the  rela- 
tions under  which  those  objects  are  contemplated.  Supernatural  religion 
is  founded  on  the  relations  in  which  God  stands  to  us  as  a  Redeemer  and 
a  Saviour  ;  natural  religion,  upon  the  relations  in  which  He  stands  to  us 
as  Creator  and  Governor.  The  Trinity  is  alike  the  object  of  both.  It 
was  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  who  created  Adam,  and  he  was  bound 
to  worship  the  Trinity — for  there  is  no  other  God — under  the  pain  of 
idolatry.  Natural  religion  is  as  much  revealed  as  supernatural.  If  its 
object  be  the  Trinity,  nature  never  could  discover  the  personality  of  the 
Deity.  Adam  was  dependent  upon  the  Author  of  his  being  for  the  know- 
ledge of  His  name.  And  though,  when  the  object  of  worship  was  once 
made  known,  and  the  relations  in  which  man  stood  to  the  Deity  discov- 
ered, the  duties  were  a  matter  of  obvious  deduction,  yet,  as  the  same 
holds  in  supernatural  religion,  revelation  is  equally  important  to  botli. 
By  natural  religion  we  understand  the  religion  of  man  in  his  state  of 
nature  as  he  came  from  the  hands  of  his  Maker ;  by  supernatural  relig- 
ion, the  religion  of  sinners  redeemed  by  grace  and  restored  to  the  favour 
of  God.  The  covenant  of  works  is  natural,  the  covenant  of  grace  super- 
natural, religion;  and  both  are  equally  revealed. 


IN    REGARD   TO    REVELATION.  211 

ing1;he  mysteries  of  graee  it  unfolds  at  the  same  time  rela- 
tions to  God,  to  all  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity,  to  our  fellow- 
men  and  ourselves,  which,  as  they  are  founded  upon  nothing 
in  nature,  could  not  be  discovered  without  the  light  of 
revelation,  and  just  as  truly  create  obligations  essentially 
moral  in  their  character  as  the  natural  relations  discover- 
able by  reason  which  are  so  much  extolled.  The  distinction 
of  moral  and  positive  duties  is  not  a  distinction  of  the  mode 
in  which  the  grounds  of  duty  are  ascertained  to  us,  but  a 
distinction  of  the  grounds  of  duty  themselves;  that  being 
moral  which  grows  out  of  a  moral  relation,  and  that  pos- 
itive which  is  simply  the  offspring  of  command.  The  rela- 
tions of  redemption,  which  are  made  known  by  revelation, 
being  as  truly  moral  as  the  relations  of  creation  made 
known,  if  indeed  it  be  so,  by  the  light  of  nature,  this  new 
department  of  relations  opens  a  new  field  of  duties  specif- 
ically moral,  which  can  no  more  be  neglected  without  guilt 
than  the  more  obvious  injunctions  of  natural  religion.  To 
disregard  a  Redeemer  and  a  Saviour  would  seem  to  be  even 
more  aggravated  depravity  than  not  to  love  a  Creator  and 
Preserver.  The  relations  in  the  one  case  are  tenderer  and 
sweeter  than  those  in  the  other,  and  the  neglect  or  contempt 
of  them  consequently  argues  intenser  hardness  of  heart  and 
deeper  obduracy  of  conscience. 

That  the  offices  of  the  Godhead  in  the  economy  of  sal- 
vation present  the  Deity  to  us  in  a  new  light,  and  expand 
the  circle  of  our  moral  obligations,  may  be  admitted;  while 
it  is  not  so  obvious  that  our  duties  to  ourselves  and  others 
are  any  otherwise  enlarged  than  as  they  are  enjoined  with 
greater  clearness  and  authority  than  unassisted  reason  could 
reach.  But  Christianity  unquestionably  binds  the  race  to- 
gether in  ties  unknown  to  nature.  She  establishes  a  sacred 
brotherhood  in  a  common  origin,  a  common  ruin,  a  com- 
mon immortality  and  a  common  Saviour,  which  unites  the 
descendants  of  Adam  into  one  great  family,  and  renders 
wars,  discords  and  jealousies  as  odious  as  they  are  hurtful. 
The  benevolence  of  the  Bible  is  a  different  princij^le  from 


212  THE   OFFICE   OF   REASON 

the  benevolence  of  nature  and  that  peculiar  sympathy  of 
the  redeemed — the  cultivation  of  which  is  at  once  a  duty 
and  a  delight — founded  upon  a  common  union  with  their 
Lord,  and  a  common  participation  of  the  glorious  Spirit,  is 
as  much  above  anything  attainable  by  unrenewed  human- 
ity as  the  heavens  are  above  the  earth.  "A  neio  command- 
ment give  I  unto  you,  that  ye  love  one  another." 

The  duties  of  temperance  and  chastity  which  primarily 
respect  ourselves  are  placed  upon  a  basis  entirely  novel,  and 
invested  with  awful  sanctions  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Scrip- 
tures that  our  bodies  are  the  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Chambering,  wantonness  and  dissipation  become,  under  this 
view,  not  merely  excesses,  but  sacrilege.  They  insult  God 
while  they  degrade  ourselves. 

In  all  these  cases,  however,  in  which  Christianity  enlarges 
the  field  of  morality  by  enlarging  our  knowledge  of  the 
moral  relations  into  which  our  duties  must  ultimately  be 
resolved,  reason  is  competent  to  recognize  the  duty  as  soon  as 
the  relation  is  discovered.  It  cannot,  indeed,  discover  the 
relation  itself — this  grows  out  of  the  supernatural  facts  of 
revelation — but  when  they  are  once  admitted  there  is  noth- 
ing in  the  subsequent  process  beyond  the  capacities  of  nature. 
Hence,  if  any  duties  contradictory  to  these  relations  should 
be  enjoined,  the  pretended  revelation  might  be  as  confi- 
dently pronounced  to  be  the  offspring  of  imposture  as  if  it 
inculcated  principles  inconsistent  with  the  relations  discov- 
erable by  reason.  The  negative  jurisdiction  of  reason  in  the 
department  of  morality  is  the  same  as  that  which  belongs  to 
it  in  the  department  exclusively  natural.  The  morality 
does  not  vary  with  the  light  by  which  it  is  perceived.  The 
form  of  communication  makes  no  change  in  the  essence  of 
the  duty.  We  cannot,  therefore,  agree  with  Lord  Bacon  in 
looking  upon  morality,  in  any  aspect  of  it,  as  strictly  super- 
natural. It  falls  within  the  legitimate  province  of  reason ; 
and  though  revelation  may  enlarge  its  dominion,  remove  its 
defects,  and  enforce  its  claims  by  new  and  more  effectual 
sanctions,  still,  as  in  itself  it  does  not  bear  visibly  the  im- 


IX    REGARD    TO    REVELATION.  213 

press  of  God,  it  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  competent  to 
authenticate  any  system  professing  to  be  from  Him. 

It  is  remarkable,  too,  that  it  is  only  in  the  negative  light 
upon  which  we  have  insisted  as  that  in  which  the  Scriptures 
present  the  argument  from  morality  that  so  much  stress  has 
been  laid  upon  that  argument  by  a  certain  class  of  writers 
as  to  make  it  the  great  internal  proof  of  revelation.  Our 
Saviour  does  not  say  that  His  system  is  necessarily  from 
God  because  it  is  pure,  but  that  it  cannot  be  from  the 
Devil.  The  sublime  sanctity  of  His  precepts  was  a  triumph- 
ant demonstration  that  the  finger  of  Beelzebub  had  no  ]>art 
in  his  miracles;  therefore  they  were  Divine,  and  therefore 
his  doctrines  were  to  be  received.  The  pure  morality  is 
pleaded  to  remove  objections,  and  nothing  more ;  and  the 
principle  is  obviously  implied  that  any  imperfections  in  this 
respect  are  a  conclusive  refutation  of  the  pretensions,  how- 
ever supported,  of  a  professed  revelation. 

The  negative  jurisdiction  which  we  have  assigned  to  rea- 
son in  the  natural  department  of  revelation,  we  are  not  reluc- 
tant to  confess,  is  capable  of  immense  abuse.  This  is  the 
arena  upon  which  shallow  philosophy  and  spurious  science 
have  delighted  to  contest  the  claims  of  Christianity.  The 
dreams  of  visionaries,  the  maxims  of  education  and  the 
prejudices  of  ignorance  will  in  the  exercise  of  this  jurisdic- 
tion be  made,  to  a  g]'eater  or  less  extent,  the  touchstone  of 
Divine  truth,  and  prove  the  rock  on  which  thousands  shall 
stumble  and  perish.  It  is  not  to  be  expected,  in  this  world 
of  sin  and  error,  that  rights  will  be  always  rightly  used. 
The  Jews,  without  controversy,  not  only  had  the  right,  but 
were  solemnly  bound,  to  try  the  religion  of  Jesus  by  the 
standard  of  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  and  yet  in  the  exercise 
of  this  unquestionable  right,  the  discharge  of  this  imper- 
ative obligation,  they  were  led  to  condemn  the  Saviour  as  an 
impostor  and  blasphemer.  They  were  surely  not  to  be 
denied  the  privilege  of  reasoning  from  the  Scriptures  be- 
cause they  reasoned  badly.  The  use  of  medicine  is  not  to 
be  prohibited  because  quacks  and  mountebanks  turn  it  into 


214  THE   OFFICE   OF   REASON 

poison  and  murder  their  unfortunate  patients.  If  God 
gives  reason  the  right  to  judge,  He  gives  it  subject  to  a 
fearful  responsibility ;  and  in  nothing  is  the  obligation  so  sol- 
emn and  awful  to  cultivate  a  love  of  truth,  to  cherish  a 
spirit  of  honesty  and  candour,  and  guard  the  mind  against 
prejudice  and  passion,  as  in  this  veiy  matter  of  Aveighing 
the  evidence  of  a  professed  revelation.  When  there  is  a 
contradiction  betwixt  our  philosophy  and  it,  the  method  of 
reason  and  of  duty  is  to  compare  their  respective  evidences, 
and  lean  to  the  side  which  has  the  preponderance.  If  the 
principle  which  is  contradicted  be  an  intuitive  truth  or  a 
demonstrative  conclusion,  the  pretended  revelation  must  be 
evidently  discarded ;  if  it  be  only  a  probable  opinion,  the 
arguments  which  sustain  it  must  be  stronger  than  the  proofs 
of  revelation  before  the  latter  can  be  jnstly  rejected  for  the 
former.  Whatever  credentials  the  professed  revelation  pre- 
sents are  so  many  positive  arguments  which  cannot  be  set 
aside  without  stronger  opposing  proofs.  The  great  danger 
is  in  over-estimating  the  evidence  in  support  of  a  favourite 
opinion.  "  Nothing,"  says  Paley,  "  is  so  soon  made  as  a 
maxim."  Those,  consequently,  who  do  not  make  conscience 
of  truth  are  under  severe  temptation  to  contract  the  guilt 
of  rejecting  the  Word  of  God  on  account  of  its  opposition 
to  silly  prejudices  and  hasty  inductions  which  are  assumed 
to  be  unquestionable.  This  abuse  of  reason  is  a  sin  to  which 
the  apostasy  has  exposed  us.  We  may  misjudge  where  we 
have  the  right  to  judge,  but  Ave  do  it  at  our  risk. 

The  most  precious  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  though  in  the 
forms  of  their  development  and  the  precise  mode  and  cir- 
cumstances of  their  application  they  are  pre-eminently 
supernatural,  yet  ultimately  rest  upon  moral  principles 
which  do  not  transcend  the  legitimate  province  of  reason. 
Justification  by  faith,  for  example,  while  it  involves  tlie 
supernatural  facts  connected  with  the  advent  and  offices  of 
Christ,  at  the  same  time  proceeds  upon  a  law — that  of  federal 
representation,  and  the  consequent  proi)riety  of  imputation — 
which  })elongs  to  the  department  of  morals,  and  upon  the 


IN    REGARD   TO    REVELATIOX.  215 

essential  character  of  which,  as  just  or  unjust,  reason  is  to 
some  extent  competent  to  pronounce.  A  folse  philosophy 
may  condemn  this  cardinal  principle  of  God's  dispensations 
with  man ;  it  may  be  assumed  as  a  maxim  that  neither  sin 
nor  righteousness  can  be  justly  imputed.  The  proper  reply 
to  such  cavils  and  objections  is,  not  that  reason  has  no  right  to 
pronounce  a  judgment  in  the  case,  but  that  the  judgment  in 
question  is  contrary  to  truth  and  evidence.  Those  who 
obstinately  persist  in  their  prejudices  are  in  the  same  condi- 
tion with  the  Jews,  who  felt  it  to  be  impossible  that  He  who 
was  accursed  of  God — as  Christ,  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
was  shown  to  be  by  hanging  on  a  tree — could  be  the  Saviour 
of  men,  or  their  own  promised  Messiah.  They  were  not 
wrong  in  applying  the  test  of  Scripture  to  the  pretensions 
of  Christ,  but  they  were  wrong  in  adopting  false  interpre- 
tations, in  reasoning  from  false  premises  or  corrupting  those 
that  were  true.  There  is  no  such  moral  axiom  as  the  ene- 
mies of  imputation  allege.  The  doctrine  is  fully  consistent 
with  reason,  and  if  on  account  of  it  a  revelation  is  rejected, 
it  is  rejected  in  concession  to  a  false  philosophy.  So,  again, 
it  may  be  assumed  that  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary  action, 
and  the  Bible  may  be  spurned  for  teaching  a  better  doctrine. 
But  the  species  of  abuse  which  reason  undergoes  in  this  case 
is  analogous  to  that  ^yhich  it  received  at  the  hands  of  Hume 
when  he  attempted  to  demonstrate  that  miracles  w^ere  inca- 
pable of  proof  from  human  testimony.  Reason,  in  such 
instances,  does  not  pronounce  upon  a  subject  entirely  beyond 
its  province,  but  it  may  grievously  and  sinfully  err  in  the 
character  of  the  judgment  it  shall  render.  It  may  prosti- 
tute its  right  to  the  cause  of  falsehood  and  hell. 

Could  it  be  shown  that  the  doctrine  of  imputation  involved 
a  principle  essentially  iniquitous,  or  that  states  of  heart,  as 
contradistinguished  from  transitory  acts,  could  not  be  pos- 
sessed of  a  moral  character,  we  should  feel  that  the  argu- 
ment against  Christianity  were  as  complete  as  if  it  had  been 
convicted  of  inculcating  lying  or  authorizing  fraud.  And 
hence  we  regard  those  who  by  their  perverse  disputations 


216  THE    OFFICE    OF    REASON 

corrupt  the  great  truths  of  justification  aud  original  sin  not 
simply  as  heresiarchs,  but  as  the  patrons  and  abettors  of 
gross  infidelity.  The  world  is  not  to  be  mystified  by  absurd 
interpretations,  and  the  issue  which  will  ultimately  be  made 
is  not  what  is  the  sense  of  the  Scriptures,  but  wdiether  docu- 
ments containing  the  sense  which  the  Bible  evidently  does 
can  be  inspired.  The  advocates  of  the  new  divinity  are  lay- 
ing the  foundations  broad  and  deep  of  a  new  phase  of  philo- 
sophical infidelity — an  infidelity  more  dangerous,  because 
more  subtle,  than  that  of  Bolingbroke  and  Hume,  which  pre- 
tends reverence  while  it  really  insults,  which,  like  Judas, 
betrays  the  Son  of  man  with  a  kiss.  We  would  remind 
these  men  that  all  the  trains  of  evidence  in  favour  of  Chris- 
tianity— its  prophecies  fulfilled,  its  stupendous  miracles,  its 
salutary  effects  on  the  world — are  so  many  positive  argu- 
ments against  their  pretended  axioms  which  they  are 
solemnly  bound  to  weigh  before  they  are  authorized  to  dig- 
nify their  crudities  wdth  the  title  of  intuitive  truths,  and  on 
account  of  them  dismiss  the  Gospel  with  a  sneer.  The 
Jews  were  as  certain  that  no  prophet  could  spring  from 
Galilee  and  no  good  thing  from  Nazareth  as  these  men  that 
neither  sin  nor  righteousness  can  be  imputed,  or  that  all  sin 
must  be  resolved  into  voluntary  action.  They,  too,  may  be 
confounding  familiar  prejudices  with  intuitive  truths,  and 
they  too  may  find  that  the  penalty  of  this  awful  abuse  of 
God's  best  gift  is  that  they  shall  die  in  their  sins.  We 
would  not  attack  this  species  of  philosophical  infidelity  by 
putting  its  moral  inquiries  beyond  the  territory  of  reason, 
but  we  would  assault  its  principles  themselves ;  and  Ave  are 
much  mistaken  if  it  cannot  be  shown — though  this  is  not 
the  place  for  doing  so — that  they  are  as  contrary  to  the  facts 
of  experience  as  to  the  Word  of  God,  that  they  are  shallow, 
false,  sophistical,  having  indeed  the  semblance  of  wisdom, 
but  the  substance  of  folly.  We  should  be  reluctant  even  to 
suggest  the  impression,  by  timid  distinctions  and  sly  insinu- 
ations against  the  office  of  reason,  that  the  friends  of  truth 
are  unable  to  meet  its  enemies  on  the  moral  ground  which 


IN    REGARD    TO    REVELATION.  217 

they  have  chosen  to  occupy.  ^Ve  Avould  direct  our  batter- 
ies against  their  strongholds,  turn  their  favourite  weapons 
against  themselves,  and  construct  the  same  species  of  argu- 
ment against  their  cobweb  theories  which  they  have  in  vain 
fabricated  against  the  grace  of  the  Gospel.  We  would 
appeal  from  reason  misinformed  to  reason  rightly  informed, 
from  the  drunken  to  the  sober  judge,  from  philosophy, 
falsely  so  called,  to  the  true  philosophy  of  facts. 

We  wish,  however,  to  have  it  distinctly  recollected  that 
the  province  which  we  assign  to  reason  in  this  wdiole  de- 
partment is  purely  negative.  It  is  not  within  the  compass 
of  nature,  of  moral  philosophy  or  metaphysics,  with  all 
the  lights  and  resources  which  either  or  both  can  command, 
to  devise  a  system  of  religion  adequate  to  the  wants  of  a 
sinner — to  determine  of  what  elements  it  ought  to  consist, 
how  it  shall  be  communicated,  in  what  form  dispensed,  or 
under  what  circumstances  imparted.  These  are  secret 
things  which  belong  to  God,  and  can  be  knoAvn  only  as 
He  chooses  to  reveal  them  to  the  sons  of  men.  But,  while 
reason  cannot  say  what  the  scheme  of  salvation  shall  be, 
it  may  condemn  a  system  which,  j^rofessing  to  be  from 
heaven,  contradicts  the  obvious  principles  of  truth  and  rec- 
titude. Its  office  hath  this  extent,  no  more.^  What  reve- 
lation actually  is  must  be  known  from  its  own  records. 
The  Word  and  Oracle  of  God  is  our  only  source  of  infor- 
mation. We  have  no  sympathy  with  the  prevailing  tend- 
ency of  some  modern  speculations  to  aspire  at  universal 
truths — truths  which  shall  contain  the  seeds  of  all  possible 
knowledge,  the  principles  of  all  philosophy,  and  from  which 
universal  science  may  be  deduced,  by  strictly  a  priori  \n'o- 

^  The  negative  jurisdiction  for  which  we  contend  is  generally  assumed 
by  Protestants  in  their  arguments  against  transubstantiation.  Though 
this  professes  to  be  a  supernatural  mystery,  yet  it  touches  upon  points  of 
human  philosophy  and  contradicts  the  most  obvious  principles  of  science ; 
and  therefore,  instead  of  being  entitled  to  credit  on  the  authority  of  a 
pi'etcnded  revelation,  it  is  sufficient  to  damn  the  claims  of  any  system 
which  inculcates  it.  "We  feel  the  argument  to  be  complete  against  it,  be- 
cause it  is  an  absurditv. 


218  THE    OFFICE   OF    REASON 

cesses.  It  was  to  be  hoped  that  Bacon  had  completely 
exploded  this  whole  method  of  investigation,  though  he 
has  given  countenance  to  the  possibility  of  some  such  uni- 
versal science — attained,  however,  by  induction,  and  not 
from  necessary  maxims  of  pure  reason — in  his  curious 
speculation  upon  what  he  denominates  the  first  philosophy. 

There  is  but  little  danger  that  the  physical  sciences  will 
ever  be  cultivated  •  upon  any  other  principles  than  those  of 
the  Novum  Organum.  The  time  has  gone  by  when  the 
dreams  of  Rabbins  and  Hutchinsonians  upon  the  letters, 
points  and  dots  of  the  Bible  shall  be  substituted  for  the 
observation  of  nature  and  the  consequent  generalization  of 
facts.  Science  is  felt  to  be  no  longer  the  creature  of  inge- 
nuity, but  the  offspring  of  patient  attention  and  rigorous 
induction. 

But  in  religious  and  moral  subjects  the  age  is  prone  to 
revert  to  the  exploded  method  of  the  Schools.  Discarding 
in  nature  the  safer  guidance  of  experience, -and  in  revela- 
tion the  safer  guidance  of  a  sound  interpretation,  those  who 
aspire  to  the  highest  forms  of  philosophy  are  intent  upon 
constructing  systems  without  facts,  from  principles  which 
have  been  woven  of  the  stuff*  that  dreams  are  made  of. 
The  origin  of  this  unfortunate  tendency  is,  no  doubt,  to  be 
ascribed  to  an  obvious  defect  in  Mr.  Locke's  theory  of  the 
sources  of  our  knowledge.  Overlooking  the  fact  that  the 
understanding  is,  and  must  be,  a  source  of  ideas  to  itself, 
he  had  ascribed  too  much  to  sensation  and  reflection.  The 
detection  of  the  error  has  created  a  tendency  to  the  opposite 
extreme,  and  in  modern  times  too  much  is  attributed  to 
the  spontaneous  development  of  principles  in  the  mind. 
These  are  made  the  universal  forms  of  knowledge,  and  as 
weary  a  search  is  instituted  after  these  magic  forms  as  ever 
the  Realists  embarked  in  after  their  general  entities.  As 
many  an  alchemist  persuaded  himself,  and  perhaps  others, 
that  he  had  found  the  golden  secret  of  his  toil,  so  these 
deluded  children  of  the  mist  eagerly  embrace  phantoms, 
which  they  mistake  for  the  object  of  their  quest,  and  chuckle 


IN    REGARD    TO    REVELATION.  219 

in  the  imagined  possession  of  materials  from  -vvhieh  they 
are  prepared  to  fabricate  God,  worlds  and  religion.  Happy 
mortals!  no  longer  doomed  to  the  slow  discipline  of  the 
senses  and  the  slower  discipline  of  the  understanding, 
they  carry  a  laboratory  within  from  which  they  can  extract 
at  will  the  essence  and  quintessence  of  all  possible  and 
real  things.  They  wield  an  enchanter's  wand  potent  as 
the  eye  of  Omniscience.  They  need  no  voice  from  nature, 
the  universe  or  God.  Nature,  the  universe  and  God  are 
all  the  creatures  of  their  skill.  For  ourselves,  doomed  to 
drudge  in  an  humbler  sphere,  we  are  content  to  know  of 
the  external  world  just  what  our  senses  reveal,  of  the  world 
within  us  what  reflection  can  bring  to  light,  and  of  the 
world  above  us  what  the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty 
may  vouchsafe  to  impart.  Beyond  these  soundings  we 
are  lost  in  unfathomable  depths.  Here,  then,  we  are  con- 
tent to  abide. 

Timid  believers  may,  perhaps,  be  alarmed  at  the  negative 
jurisdiction  which  we  have  conceded  to  reason  in  those 
points  in  which  revelation  touches  the  subjects  of  natural 
knowledge.  But  they  have  nothing  to  apprehend  from  its 
legitimate  exercise.  Not  a  single  contradiction  to  any  single 
principle  of  science  and  philosophy  can  be  justly  imputed 
to  the  Records  of  Christianity.  Time  was  when  infidelity 
exulted  in  the  prospect  of  reading  the  doom  of  the  Gospel 
in  the  mysteries  of  the  stars;  but  astronomy  now  is  made 
subservient  to  its  glory,  and  the  God  who  rules  the  heavens 
is  felt  to  be  the  God  of  redemption.  Then  the  bowels  of 
the  earth  were  ransacked,  and  some  secret  voice  was  in- 
voked from  the  monuments  of  faded  races  and  past  gene- 
rations to  give  the  lie  to  the  narrative  of  Moses,  but  Nature, 
in  all  her  caverns,  answered  back  to  the  testimony  of  inspi- 
ration. Nothing  in  the/ac^.s  of  the  earth's  history  could  be 
found  in  contradiction  to  the  Sacred  Records,  although 
they  were  often  rendered  subservient  to  conclusions  with 
which  they  are  as  slightly  connected  as  a  sick  man's  dreams 
with  the  realities  of  life.     None  dare  assert  that  the  facts 


220      OFFICE    OF    REASON    IN    REGARD    TO    REVELATION. 

themselves  were  contravened  by  the  Bible.  And  who  shall 
affirm  that  the  deductions  which  they  were  made  to  yield 
are  entitled  to  the  prerogative  of  infallibility,  or  possess  any 
clearer  proof  than  the  external  evidence  of  the  credibility 
of  Moses.  We  repeat  it,  Christianity  has  nothing  to  fear 
from  true  science.  It  has  passed  the  test;  and  whatever  is 
the  extent  of  the  presumption  of  Divine  interposition, 
arising  from  the  fact  that  it  touches  upon  j)hilosophy  in  so 
many  points,  and  yet  contradicts  it  in  none,  it  is  a  presump- 
tion to  which  our  holy  religion  is  fully  entitled.  How  dif- 
ferent is  the  case  with  the  records  of  Mohammedan  and  Hin- 
doo faith !  The  Bible  is  certainly  singular  in  this  respect, 
and  it  ought  to  be  a  matter  of  sincere  gratulation  to  the 
heart  of  every  believer. 


IRACLES. 


ALL  the  departures  from  the  ancient  faith  concerning 
the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  which  have  distin- 
guished modern  speculation  may  be  traced  directly,  what- 
ever may  be  said  of  the  per\'^erseness  of  the  heart  as  the 
ultimate  cause,  to  an  insuperable  repugnance  to  the  admis- 
sion of  miracles.  The  supernatural  has  been  the  stone  of 
stumbling  and  the  rock  of  offence.  The  antipathy  to  it  has 
given  rise  to  open  infidelity  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  the 
various  types  of  criticism  on  the  other,  which,  in  conse- 
quence of  their  agreement  in  rejecting  everything  that  trans- 
cends the  ordinary  agencies  of  nature,  have  been  classed 
under  the  common  name  of  Rationalism.  If  the  immediate 
intervention  of  God,  either  in  the  world  of  matter  or  of 
mind,  is  assumed  to  be  inti'insically  incredible,  nothing  is 
left  but  to  discard  the  records  which  assert  and  pretend  to 
give  examples  of  it  as  impudent  impostures ;  or  to  seek  by 
tortuous  interpretation  to  reconcile  accounts  confessedly 
false  with  the  honesty  of  the  historian,  and,  what  Avould 
seem  to  be  still  more  difficult,  with  the  essential  divinity  of 
the  religion.  The  English  Deists  in  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries  took  the  former  course,  and  denounced 
the  Bible  in  unmeasured  terms  of  vituperation  and  abuse. 
They  saw  no  middle  ground  between  the  rejection  of  the 
supernatural  and  the  rejection  of  Christianity.  They  could 
not  comprehend  how  that  could,  in  any  sense,  be  treated  as 
Divine  which  Avas  made  up  of  a  tissue  of  fables,  or  how 

221 


222  MIRACLES. 

they  could  be  regarded  as  honest  men  who  had  palmed  the 
grossest  extravagances  upon  the  world  as  sober,  historical 
realities.  AVoolston  may  perhaps  be  deemed  an  exception. 
His  letters  upon  the  miracles  of  our  Saviour  are  remarkable 
for  having  anticipated  the  method,  in  some  degree  at  least, 
which  has  been  carried  out  with  such  perverseness  of  learn- 
ing and  ingenuity  by  Strauss  and  Bauer.  "  His  whole  rea- 
soning"— we  use  the  words  of  Strauss  himself — "  turns  upon 
the  alternative,  either  to  retain  the  historical  reality  of  the 
miracles  narrated  in  the  Bible,  and  thus  to  sacrifice  the 
Divine  character  of  the  narratives,  and  reduce  the  miracles 
to  mere  artifices,  miserable  juggleries  or  commonplace  de- 
ceptions ;  or,  in  order  to  hold  fast  the  Divine  character  of 
these  narratives,  to  reject  them  entirely  as  details  of  actual 
occurrences,  and  regard  them  as  historical  representations 
of  certain  spiritual  truths."  His  own  opinion  is  nowhere 
articulately  expressed,  but  the  presumption  is,  from  the 
general  tenor  and  spirit  of  his  book,  that  he  was  really  a 
Deist,  who  resorted  to  allegory  as  a  convenient  cover  for  his 
malignity,  and  to  the  spiritual  sense  as  a  protection  from 
the  unspiritual  weapons  with  which  he  was  likely  to  be 
assailed.  He  was  well  aware,  if  his  dilemma  could  be  fairly 
and  conclusively  made  out,  which  horn  of  it  the  sturdy 
common  sense  of  Englishmen  would  adopt.  A  religion 
shrouded  in  figures  could  be  no  religion  for  them.  But, 
with  this  exception,  if  exception  it  can  be  called,  the  issue 
in  England  was,  No  miracles,  no  Christianity;  the  Bible 
must  be  accepted  as  it  is,  as  out-and-out  Divine,  or  wholly 
and  absolutely  rejected;  it  was  the  ancient  faith  or  open 
and  avowed  infidelity. 

The  case  was  diiferent  in  Germany.  The  publication  of 
the  Wolfenbiittel  Fragments — an  anonymous  production  of 
Reimar  which  pursued  precisely  the  same  line  of  argument 
with  the  English  Deists — gave  rise  to  a  class  of  theologians 
who  have  undertaken  to  retain  Christianity  at  the  expense 
of  the  historical  accuracy  of  its  records.  They  agree  with 
the  Deists  in  repudiating  all  that  is  supernatural,  but  they 


MIRACLES.  223 

canuot  agree  with  them  in  tlenouneing  Prophets  and  Apos- 
tles as  impostors,  or  in  divesting  the  biblical  narratives  of  all 
moral  and  spiritual  significance.  The  modes  in  which  they 
save  the  credit  of  the  sacred  writers  and  the  Divine  import 
of  the  sacred  history  vary  with  the  reigning  philosophy, 
and  constitute  the  different  schools  into  which  the  class  of 
theologians  commonly  known  as  Rationalists  may  be 
divided.  The  first  of  these  schools,  that  founded  by  Eich- 
horn  and  perfected  by  Paulus,  accepted  the  authenticity  of 
the  Scriptures  as  a  narrative  of  facts  by  reducing  the  mirac- 
ulous to  the  dimensions  of  the  natural.  They  were  only 
ordinary  events  produced  by  ordinary  agency,  which  had 
assumed  an  extraordinary  character  in  the  narrative,  eitlier 
from  the  omission  of  circumstances  necessary  to  explain 
them,  or  from  the  style  in  which,  the  opinions  and  preju-. 
dices  of  the  age  led  the  spectators  to  describe  them.  Our 
Saviour  neither  wrought,  nor  pretended  to  work,  miracles, 
and  the  Evangelists,  properly  interpreted — that  is,  inter- 
preted in  the  light  and  spirit  of  their  own  times — record 
nothing  of  the  kind.  All  was  natural.  Jesus  was  a  wise 
and  a  good  man,  and  what  we  are  accustomed  to  consider  as 
His  wonders  were  "  works  of  benevolence  and  friendship, 
sometimes  of  medical  skill,  sometimes  also  the  results  of  acci- 
dent and  good  fortune."  In  this  w^ay  the  history  was  saved, 
but  what  became  of  the  Divine  ?  That  also  was  reduced 
to  very  small  proportions.  Jesus  introduced  a  pure  and 
spiritual  religion,  enforced  it  by  the  example  of  a  spotless 
life,  and  confirmed  it  by  the  glory  of  a  martyr's  death.  He 
was  called  of  God,  in  the  sense  that  providential  circum- 
stances favoured  the  development  of  His  character,  and 
His  natural  gifts  qualified  Him  to  become  a  great  moral 
teacher. 

The  thorough-going  attempt  to  reduce  the  supernatural 
in  the  New  Testament  to  the  dimension  of  the  natural,  to 
make  the  miracles  nothing  but  the  language  in  which  the  age 
signalized  ordinary  phenomena,  is  one  of  the  most  curious 
chapters  in  the  history  of  criticism.     It  contained  the  seeds 


224  MIRACLES. 

of  failure  in  itself;  "  and  now,"  says  Trench,  "  even  in  the 
land  of  its  birth  it  has  entirely  perished." 

The  approximation  to  a  deeper  and  more  earnest  fliith 
was  indicated  by  the  systematic  effort  of  Sehleiermacher  to 
reconcile  religion  to  nature  without  stripping  it  of  all  Divine 
power.  The  supernatural,  in  common  with  the  Deists 
and  the  preceding  school,  he  discarded.  The  low  sense  of 
the  natural  which  Paulus  contended  for  he  equally  repudi- 
ated. He  wanted  more  of  God — a  religion  that  should 
really  answer  to  the  description  of  God  manifest  in  the 
flesh.  The  anxiety  to  escape  from  anything  like  a  real  mir- 
acle, and  the  longing  for  a  system  of  spiritual  life  and  power, 
the  revulsion  alike  against  a  material  naturalism  and  a  pal- 
pable supernaturalism,  is  the  key  to  the  elaborate  Christol- 
ogy  of  Sehleiermacher.  The  conception  which  he  had  of 
Christ  as  the  archetype  of  perfect  humanity,  in  whom  the 
consciousness  of  God  existed  in  absolute  strength,  led  him 
to  attribute  to  the  Saviour  an  intimacy  of  communion  with 
nature  and  an  access  to  her  secrets  which  no  other  man 
possessed.  He  was  familiar  with  her  mighty  energies,  and 
He  could  lay  His  hand  upon  the  springs  of  her  power,  and 
produce  effects  which  to  those  immei-sed  in  sense  should 
appear  to  be  supernatural.  Still,  all  that  He  did  was  to 
obey  her  laws.  He  never  rose  above  her.  A  profounder 
knowledge  invested  Him  with  a  deeper  power,  but  it  was 
the  same  in  kind  with  the  power  of  other  men.  This,  of 
course,  was  to  deny  the  miracles  without  denying  the  phe- 
nomena of  the  New  Testament. 

Next  comes  a  school  which  discards  the  entire  histories 
of  the  New  Testament  as  authentic  narratives  of  facts,  and 
makes  them  the  offspring  of  the  love,  admiration  and  glory 
with  which  the  followers  of  Jesus  adorned  their  recollec- 
tions of  their  Master.  They  were  unconscious  allegories, 
into  which  their  imaginations,  enriched  and  expanded  by 
the  prejudices,  and  expectations,  and  habits  of  thought 
engendered  by  the  Old  Testament,  threw  their  remem- 
brances of  their  Lord—"  the  halo  of  glory  with  which  the 


MIRACLES.  225 

infant  Cliiirch,  gradually  and  without  any  purpose  of  deceit, 
clothed  its  Founder  and  Head.  His  mighty  personality,  of 
which  it  Avas  livingly  conscious,  caused  it  ever  to  surround 
Him  with  new  attributes  of  glory.  All  which  men  had 
ever  craved  and  longed  for — deliverance  from  physical  evil, 
dominion  over  the  crushing  powers  of  nature,  victory  over 
death  itself — all  which  had  ever,  in  a  lesser  measure,  been 
attributed  to  any,  they  lent  in  a  larger  abundance,  in  unre- 
strained fullness,  to  Him  whom  they  felt  greater  than  all. 
The  system  may  be  most  fitly  characterized  "—and  we  cor- 
dially concur  in  the  caustic  criticism  of  Trench — "  as  the 
Church  making  its  Christ,  and  not  Christ  His  Church." 

On  this  scheme  the  history,  both  natural  and  supernatu- 
ral, is  fairly  abandoned.  There  was  a  basis  of  facts  in  the 
life  of  Jesus,  but  what  those  facts  really  were  we  have  no 
means  of  determining.  He  lived  and  died,  and  this  is 
about  all  we  can  know  with  any  certainty.  What,  then, 
becomes  of  the  Divine  ?  Is  not  that  abandoned  too  ?  By  no 
means,  says  Strauss.  The  history  is  altogether  unessential ; 
the  absolute  contents  of  Christianity  are  quite  independent 
of  it.  The  stories  of  the  New  Testament  are  only  the  dra- 
pery in  which  a  grand  idea  is  represented,  and  that  idea 
may  be  seized  and  retained  without  clinging  to  the  dress  in 
which  it  was  first  presented.  We  may  give  up  the  Bible 
without  surrendering  aught  that  is  Divine  in  Christianity 
itself.  Here  that  criticism  which  ventures  to  reject  the 
supernatural,  and  yet  call  itself  Christian,  seems  to  have 
reached  its  culminating  point.  Extravagance  could  go  no 
farther. 

Though  the  term  Rationalist  as  a  distinctive  title  is,  for 
the  most  part,  restricted  to  the  school  of  Eichhorn  and 
Paulus,  we  have  not  hesitated  to  extend  it  to  them  all,  in 
consequence  of  their  agreement  in  radical  and  fundamental 
principles.  They  all  equally  reject  the  supernatural,  they 
all  equally  admit  no  other  standard  of  truth  but  our  own 
reason,  they  all  equally  repudiate  an  objective,  external 
Divine  revelation.  The  Divine  witli  them  is  only  the  true, 
Vol.  III.— 15 


226 


MIRACLES. 


and  the  true  is  that  which  authenticates  itself  to  our  own 
souls.  We  believe  because  we  see  or  feel,  and  not  because 
the  mouth  of  the  Lord  has  spoken.  They  all  equally  make 
man  the  measure  of  his  religion.  To  indicate  the  differ- 
ences among  themselves,  the  epithets  Sensual  and  Spiritual 
might  be  chosen,  which  seem  to  be  aj^propriate  to  the  differ- 
ent systems  of  philosophy  they  had  respectively  eml^raced. 

The  pretensions  to  a  deeper  spiritualism  and  a  pro  founder 
life  have  given  something  of  currency  to  the  peculiar  system 
of  Schleiermacher,  have  detracted  from  the  historic  form 
in  which  the  Christology  of  the  ancient  faith  is  embodied, 
and  served  to  increase,  if  not  to  engender,  a  secret  prejudice, 
on  the  part  of  earnest  inquirers,  against  the  miraculous 
features  of  Christianity.  Men  have  been  willing  to  accept 
a  religion  which  promises  to  satisfy  the  longings  of  their 
nature  without  demanding  an  extraordinary  faith ;  which  meets 
their  wants  without  repressing  the  freedom  of  speculation. 

But  the  point  on  which' the  Church  has  always  insisted, 
and  which  she  makes  essential  to  the  existence  of  a  true 
faith,  is,  that  the  scheme  of  Christianity  involves  the  direct 
intervention  of  God,  and  that  the  Scriptures,  which  record 
that  scheme,  are  an  authoritative  external  testimony  from 
Him.  She  is  not  content  with  a  barren  compliment  to  the 
honesty  and  integrity  of  the  writers,  nor  with  the  still  more 
barren  admission  that  something  of  truth,  more  or  less 
elevated,  according  to  the  philosophy  of  the  critic,  can  be 
extracted  from  their  pages.  She  asserts  their  autliority  to 
speak  in  the  name  of  God ;  and  she  commends  their  doc- 
trines, not  because  they  commend  themselves  by  intrinsic 
probability  or  ideal  excellence,  but  because  they  are  the 
Word  of  the  Lord.  The  fundamental  postulate  of  the 
Rationalist  of  every  type  precludes  the  conception  of  such 
a  revelation.  A  religion  of  authority  he  as  indignantly 
rejects  as  the  most  unblushing  scoffer.  Such  a  revelation, 
being  essentially  supernatural,  stands  or  falls  with  the 
mirac.'lc.  Let  those,  therefore,  who  feel  themselves  tempted 
to  join  in  the  cry  against  miracles,  and  to  depreciate  them 


MIRACLES.  227 

as  carnal  and  earthly,  who  would  insist  upon  the  Divine 
truths  of  Christianity  to  the  exclusion  or  neglect  of  its 
equally  Divine  credentials,  consider  well  Avhat  they  are 
doing.  They  are  giving  currency  to  a  principle  which,  if  i 
legitimately  carried  out,  would  rob  them  of  those  very  / 
truths  in  which  they  are  disposed  to  rest.  There  is  not  a 
distinctive  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  which  could  be  knoAvn  i 
to  be  true  independently  of  just  such  a  revelation  as  impliesj 
the  reality  of  miracles.  There  are  no  lines  of  ratiocination, 
no  measures  of  experience,  no  range  of  intuition,  no  ideas 
awakened  in  the  soul,  which  could  authenticate  to  us  the 
ends  and  purposes  on  the  part  of  God  involved  in  that 
series  of  stupendous  facts  unfolded  in  the  biblical  histories. 
What  elevation  of  consciousness  or  what  intensity  of  moral 
and  spiritual  enthusiasm  could  ever  ascertain  to  us  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  great  Mediator,  on  the  part  of  Heaven's 
high  chancery,  to  bring  in  an  everlasting  righteousness  and 
to  open  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  all  believers?  The  sen- 
sible phenomena  connected  with  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus 
may,  indeed,  be  apprehended,  but  their  significance  in  the 
economy  of  God  it  transcends  the  sphere  of  our  faculties  to 
discover.  They  are  the  counsels  of  His  will,  which  none 
can  penetrate  but  His  own  eternal  Spirit;  and  unless  He 
has  revealed  them,  our  speculations  about  them  are  little 
better  than  a  sick  man's  dreams.  They  must  be  known  by 
a  Divine  testimony,  or  they  cannot  be  known  at  all.  The 
question,  then,  of  miracles  runs  into  the  question  concerning 
those  very  doctrines  for  the  sake  of  which  we  affect  to  sliglit 
them.  It  is  impossible  to  abandon  the  miracle,  and  cling 
to  any  other  Christianity  but  that  which  is  enkindled  in 
our  own  souls  from  the  sparks  of  our  own  reason.  The 
consciousness  of  the  individual  or  the  consciousness  of  the 
Christian  community,  awakened  and  propagated  by  sym- 
patliy,  must  be  the  sole  criterion  of  truth.  There  is  no 
alternative;  man  must  make  his  religion  if  God  cannot 
give  it  to  him. 

As  the  question  of  an  external,  authoritative  revelation 


228  MIRACLES. 

depends  upon  the  question  of  the  truth  or  possibility  of 
miracles,  we  have  thought  proper  to  contribute  our  mite  to 
the  interests  of  religion   and  (may  we  not  add?)  of  a  sound 
philosophy  by  a  calm  and  candid  discussion  of  the  whole 
subject.     We  are  aware  that  some  would  have  religion  as 
completely   divorced   from   letters   as   from    politics.     But 
such  a  separation  is  as  hopelessly  impossible  as  it  is  unde- 
sirable, if  it  were  possible.     Religion  and  philosophy  touch 
~at  every  point ;  and  we  agree  with  Suarez  that  no  man  can 
be  an  accomplished  theologian  who  is  not,  at  the  same  time, 
an  accomplished  metaphysician,  and  that  no  man  can  be  an 
i  accomplished    metaphysician   without   imbibing   principles 
[which  should  lead  him  to  religion.     Faith  and  reason  are 
distinguished,  but  not  opposed;  and  though  a  superficial 
culture  may  have  the  eifect  which  Strauss  ascribes  to  it, 
of  alienating  the    mind   from  the   Sacred   Records,    yet  a 
deeper  and  sounder  philosophy  will  correct  the  aberration. 
We   shall   know  nothing  of  sects   or   parties;   but   those 
broad  questions  which  mere  sectaries  and  partisans  cannot 
comprehend,  yet  which  pertain  to  the  statesman  and  scholar, 
are  exactly  the  topics  which  ought  to  find  a  place  in  a 
journal  like  this.     We  shall  feel  that  we  have  rendered  an 
essential  service  to  society  if  we  can  succeed,  in  any  mea- 
sure, in  showing  that  the  prejudice  against  the  supernatural, 
which    operates   unfavourably   on   the  minds  of   many   in 
averting  their  attention  from  Divine  revelation,  is  without 
any  just  foundation.     We  hope  that  religion  can  be  rec- 
onciled with  science  upon  a  safer  and  easier  plan  than  the 
sacrifice  of  either. 

The  works  named  at  the  head  of  our  article^  cover  the 
whole  ground  which  we  propose  to  occupy.  We  shall 
pursue  the  method  adopted  by  Dr.  Wardlaw,  and  discuss, 
first,  the  nature  of  miracles;  then,  their  apologetic  worth; 
and,  finally,  their  credibility. 

1.  What,  then,  is  a   miracle?     It   is    obvious    that    the 
1  Note  by  Editor.— These  were  Trench  and  Wardlaw  on  Miracles, 
ind  Hinds'  Inquiry  into  the  proof,  nature  and  extent  of  Inspiration. 


MIRACLES.  229 

definition  should  contenipltite  it  only  as  a  phenomenon,  and 
include  nothing  but  the  difference  wliich  distinguishes  it 
from  every  other  species  of  events.  There  should  be  no 
reference  to  the  cause  that  produces  it;  that  must  be  an 
inference  from  the  nature  of  the  effect.  Those  who  make, 
as  Mill  does  in  his  Logic,  the  belief  of  God's  existence 
essential  to  the  credibility  of  a  miracle,  virtually  deny  that 
the  miracle  can  be  employed  as  a  proof  of  His  being.  But 
there  is  evidently  no  reason  in  the  nature  of  things  why  the 
argument  here  cannot  proceed  from  the  effect  to  the  cause, 
as  in  the  ordinary  changes  of  nature.  The  miracle  presup- 
poses God,  and  so  does  the  Avorld.  But  the  miracle,  as  a 
phenomenon,  may  be  apprehended  even  by  the  Atheist.  It 
is  an  event,  and  an  event  of  a  peculiar  kind,  and  God  comes 
in  when  the  inquiry  is  made  for  the  cause.  Hence  Cud- 
worth  and  Barrow,  as  well  as  the  Fathers  and  Schoolmen, 
do  not  hesitate  to  appeal  to  miracles  as  an  argument  for  the 
Divine  existence.  Considered  as  a  phenomenon,  in  what 
does  the  peculiarity  of  the  miracle  consist?  Trench  does 
not  give  a  formal  definition,  and  we  find  it  difficult  to 
determine  precisely  what  his  notion  was.  He  explains  the 
terms  by  which  miracles  are  distinguished  in  Scripture,  but 
these  terms  express  only  the  effects  upon  our  own  minds, 
the  purposes  for  which  and  the  power  by  wdiich  they  are 
wrought,  and  the  operations  themselves — the  effect,  the  end, 
the  cause — but  they  do  not  single  out  that  in  the  phe- 
nomenon by  which  it  becomes  a  wonder,  a  sign,  a  power  or 
a  work.  In  his  comparison  of  miracles  and  nature  we 
have  either  failed  to  understand  him  or  he  contradicts  him- 
self. He  asserts,  first,  that  the  agency  of  God  is  as  imme- 
diate in  the  ordinary  occurrences  of  nature  as  in  the  pro- 
duction of  miracles.  The  will  of  God  is  the  only  })Ower 
which  he  recognizes  anywhere,  and  to  say  "that  there  is 
more  of  the  will  of  God  in  a  miracle  than  in  any  other 
work  of  His  is  insufficient."^  And  yet  in  less  than  a 
page  he  asserts:  "An  extraordinary  Divine  causality  be- 
1  Trench's  Xotes  on  the  Miracles,  p.  10. 


230  MIRACLES. 

longs,  then,  to  the  essence  of  the  miracle;  more  than  that 
ordinary  which  we  acknowledge  in  everything;  powers  of 
God  other  than  those  which  have  always  been  working; 
such,  indeed,  as  most  seldom  or  never  have  been  working 
until  now.  The  unresting  activity  of  God,  which  at  other 
times  hides  and  conceals  itself  behind  the  veil  of  what  we 
term  natural  laws,  does  in  the  miracle  unveil  itself;  it  steps 
out  from  its  concealment,  and  the  hand  which  works  is  laid 
bare."^  If  God  immediately  produces  all  events,  what  can 
be  meant  by  extraordinary  Divine  causality?  And  if  the 
will  of  God  is  the  sole  energy  in  nature,  what  are  "the 
powers  of  God  other  than  those  which  have  been  always 
working?"  Has  the  will  of  God  been  seldom  or  never 
exerted?  If  the  hand  of  God  was  directly  in  every  event, 
how  has  it  been  concealed  behind  natural  laws?  There  is 
certainly  a  confusion  here.  The  two  sets  of  statements 
must  have  been  written  under  the  influence  of  different 
feelings.  His  anxiety  to  escape  from  a  dead,  mechanical 
view  of  nature,  and  from  Epicurean  conceptions  of  the  in- 
dolence of  God,  may  account  for  his  denial  of  all  second- 
ary agencies;  the  palpable  features  of  the  miracle  forced 
upon  him  the  admissions  of  these  same  agencies  as  a  stand- 
ard by  which  it  was  to  be  tried. 

The  scriptural  term  which  gives  us  the  nearest  insight 
into  the  real  nature  of  the  miracle  is  precisely  the  one  of 
which  Dr.  Trench  speaks  most  slightingly — the  word 
wonder.^  It  is  true  that  every  wonder  is  not  a  miracle,  but 
every  miracle  is  a  wonder.  The  cause  of  wonder  is  tlie 
unexpectedness  of  an  event;  and  the  specific  difference  of 
the  miracle  is,  that  it  contradicts  that  course  of  nature  wliich 
we  expected  to  find  uniform.  It  is  an  event  either  above, 
or  opposed  to,  secondary  causes.  Leave  out  the  notion  of 
these  secondary  causes,  and  there  can  be  no  miracle.  All 
is  God.     Admit  a  nature  apart  and  distinct  from  God,  and 

1  Trench  on  Miracles,  p.  12. 

-  Miraculi  nomen  ab  adniiratione  sinnitur.  Thomas  Aquinas,  Siinnna, 
1,  (Juest.  cv.,  Art.  vii. 


MIRACLES.  231 

there  is  scope  for  an  extraordinary  power.  Tlie  doctrine 
of  nature,  as  consisting  of  a  series  of  agencies  and  powers, 
of  substances  jjossessed  of  active  j)i'operties  in  their  rela- 
tions to  each  other,  by  no  means  introduces  a  dead,  mechan- 
ical view  of  the  universe.  God  has  not  'left  the  world,  as 
a  watchmaker  leaves  his  clock  after  he  has  wound  it  up, 
to  pursue  its  own  course  independently  of  any  interference 
from  Him.  He  is  present  in  every  part  of  His  dominion ; 
He  pervades  the  powers  which  He  has  imparted  to  created 
substances  by  his  ceaseless  energy.  He  sustains  their  ef- 
ficiency, and  he  regulates  all  the  adjustments  upon  which 
their  activity  depends.  He  is  the  life  of  nature's  life.  In 
Him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being.  But  still,  in 
dependence  upon  His  sustaining  care  and  the  concurrence 
of  His  pervading  energy,  nature  has  powers  and  consists  of 
causes  which,  in  the  same  circumstances,  always  produce  the 
same  effects.  To  the  following  remarks  of  Dr.  Wardlaw 
we  cordially  assent : 

"I  have  alreadj',  at  the  very  outset,  given  a  definition  of  them  in 
other  terms — as  works  mvolving  a  temporary  suspension  of  the  known, 
laws  of  nature,  or  a  deviation  from  the  established  constitution  and 
fixed  order  of  the  tmiverse;  or,  perhaps  more  correctly,  of  that  de- 
partment of  the  universe  which  constitutes  our  oion  system,  whose 
established  order  and  laws  we  are  capable,  to  the  full  extent  requisite 
for  the  purpose,  of  accurately  ascertaining — works,  therefore,  which 
can  be  effected  by  no  power  short  of  that  which  gave  the  universe  its 
being  and  its  constitution  and  laws.  In  this  definition,  let  it  be 
observed,  I  have  called  a  miracle  a  suspension  of  the  known  laws  of 
nature.  It  is  necessary  to  mark  this.  Efi"ects,  it  is  abundantly  obvi- 
ous, might  be  produced,  such  as,  to  those  who  witnessed  them,  might 
appear,  and  might  be  believed,  miraculous,  while  the  persons  by  whom 
they  are  ])eiformed  are  well 'aware,  from  their  superior  acquaintance 
with  the  laws,  and  powers,  and  phenomena  of  nature,  that  the  ap- 
pearance is  fallacious  and  the  belief  unfounded.  The  per-sons  before 
whom  they  are  performed  may  be  utterly  unable  to  account  for  them 
by  any  natural  laws  or  powers  knoicn  to  them ;  while,  in  point  of 
fact,  in  ])lace  of  their  being  suspensions  of  any  law  or  laws  of  nature 
whatsoever,  they  are  actually  the  product  of  their  operation ;  so  that, 
in  the  circumstances,  the  real  miracle  would  have  lain  not  in  their 
production,  but  in  their  no/i-production.     That  would  have  been  the 


232  MIRACLES. 

true  deviation  from  the  settled  constitution  of  nature.  In  such  a 
case,  the  miracle  is  a  miracle  only  to  ignorance;  that  is,  it  is  no 
miracle.  A  little  farther  development  of  the  secrets  of  nature  anni- 
hilates the  seemingly  miraculous,  and  only  reads  to  the  previously  un- 
informed mind  a  new  lesson  of  nature's  uniformity.  It  becomes,  there- 
fore, an  indispensable  requisite  to  a  genuine  miracle  that  it  be  wrought 
both  on  materials,  and  by  materials,  of  which  the  properties  are  well 
and  fiimiliarly  known ;  respecting  which,  that  is,  the  common  course 
of  nature  is  fully  understood. ' '  ^ 

Dr.  Wardlaw  subsequently  criticises,  and  we  think  with 
justice,  the  distinctions  and  evasions  by  which  Trench 
undertakes  to  rescue  the  miracle  from  being  a  violation  of 
nature's  order ;  to  this  point  we  shall  afterward  refer. 
We  cannot  forbear  to  quote  a  portion  of  his  remarks : 

"The  truth  is,  we  must  understand  the  term  nature  in  the  .sense 
usually  attached  to  it,  as  relating  to  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the 
physical  system  of  our  own  globe.  It  is  true  that,  in  consequence  of 
sin,  there  have  been  'jarrings  and  disturbances'  of  its  'primitive 
order.'  But  it  does  not  follow  from  that  that  there  are  no  natural 
principles  and  laws  in  fixed  and  constant  operation.  And  when  an 
event  occurs  for  which  these  natural  principles  and  laws  make  no  pro- 
vision, for  which  they  can  in  no  way  account,  which  is  quite  aside 
from  and  at  variance  with  their  ordinary  uniform  operations,  it  does 
not  to  me  seem  very  material  whether  we  speak  of  it  as  beyond 
nature,  or  above  nature,  or  beside  nature,  or  against  nature,  or  con- 
trary to  nature — whether  as  a  suspension,  an  iutermption,  a  contra- 
vention, or  a  violation  of  nature's  laws — provided  we  are  understand- 
ing 'nature  and  natm-e's  laws'  as  having  reference  to  the  physical 
economy  of  our  own  system.  When,  in  illustration  of  his  position 
that  a  miracle  is  not  at  all  '  the  infraction  of  a  law,  but  only  a  lower 
law  neutralized  and  put  out  of  working  by  a  superior,'  Mr.  Trencb 
says,  '  Continually  we  behold  in  the  world  around  us  lower  laws  held 
in  restraint  by  higher,  mechanic  by  dynamic,  chemical  by  vital,  jihys- 
ical  by  moral ;  yet  we  say  not,  when  the  lower  thus  gives  place  in 
favour  of  the  higher,  that  there  was  any  violation  of  law,  that  any- 
thing contrary  to  nature  came  to  pass;  rather  we  acknoAvlcdge  the 
law  of  a  greater  freedom  swallowing  u]i  the  laAv  of  a  lesser, '  he  seems 
to  forget  that  this  '  holding  in  restraint  of  one  law  by  the  operation  of 
another'  is  itself  one  of  the  very  laics  whose  working  '  w^e  behold  in 
the  world  around  us,'  and  that  it  comes,  therefore,  among  the  laws 
of  nature  as  ordinarily  understood— that  is,  as  having  relation  to  this 
1  Wardlaw  on  Miracles,  pp.  34,  35. 


MIRACLES.  233 

said  'world  around  us,'  to  the  physical  order  of  our  sj^stem.  But  it  is 
manifestly  unfair,  in  interpreting  nature,  to  quit  our  own  system,  to 
mount  to  a  loftier  sphere,  to  take  in  a  wider  amplitude,  to  embrace 
the  entire  range  of  being ;  and  then,  because  a  thing,  though  a  mani- 
fest contravention  of  the  laws  of  '  the  world  around  us, '  of  '  the  nature 
which  we  know,'  may  not  be  out  of  harmony  with  nature  when  con- 
sidered as  embracing  the  boundless  universe,  and  even  the  attributes 
of  its  Maker,  thus  bringing  Omnijiotence  itself  into  the  range  of  'nat- 
ural causes, '  to  deny  the  propriety  of  pronouncing  anything  whatever 
to  be  against  nature.  For  this  involves  the  fallacy  of  taking  the  same 
term  in  two  senses,  and  because  the  thing  in  question  may  not  be 
inconsistent  with  it  in  the  one,  concluding  that  it  cannot  be  inconsist- 
ent with  it  in  the  other !"  ' 

2.  Having  settled  that  the  essence  of  the  miracle  consists  in 
the  contranatiiral  or  the  supernatural,  we  are  now  prepared 
to  investigate  its  apologetic  worth.  The  question  to  be 
answered  is  briefly  this — we  quote  the  words  of  Mr,  Trench — 
"  Is  the  miracle  to  command,  absolutely  and  without  fur- 
ther question,  the  obedience  of  those  in  whose  sight  it  is 
done,  or  to  whom  it  comes  as  an  adequately  attested  fact,  so 
that  the  doer  and  the  doctrine,  without  any  more  debate, 
shall  be  accepted  as  from  God?"  In  other  words,  is  the 
miracle  in  itself,  from  its  own  intrinsic  character,  a  suf- 
ficient credential  of  Divine  inspiration  or  a  Divine  com- 
mission ? 

Trench,  in  company  with  the  Jewish  and  Pagan  enemies 
of  Christianity,  and  a  large  body  of  both  Catholic  and 
Protestant  theologians,  answers  in  the  negative.  Dr.  Ward- 
law  answers  in  the  affirmative,  and  we  think  that  Dr. 
Wardlaw  is  right.  The  assumption  on  which  the  negative 
proceeds  is,  that  a  real  miracle  may  be  wrouglit  by  beings 
inferior  to  God.  The  Jews  ascribed  those  of  our  Saviour 
to  Beelzebub,  the  Gentiles  to  magic,  and  the  Scriptures 
themselves  warn  us  against  the  lying  wonders  of  the  Man 
of  sin.  The  miracle,  consequently,  estiiblishes,  in  tlie  first 
instance,  only  the  certainty  of  a  superhuman  origin,  without 
determining  anything  as  to  its  character.  It  may  bo  lieaven 
'  "Wardlaw  on  Miracles,  pp.  40,  41. 


234  MIRACLES. 

or  it  may  be  hell.  To  complete  the  proof  the  nature  of  the 
doctrine  must  be  considered.  If  that  is  approved  by  the 
conscience  or  commends  itself  to  the  reason,  it  settles  the 
question  as  to  the  real  source  of  the  miracle,  and  the  miracle, 
thus  authenticated  as  from  God,  confirms  in  turn  the  Divine 
origin  of  the  doctrine.  We  acquit  this  reasoning  of  the 
charge  which  has  often  been  brought  against  it  of  arguing 
in  a  circle.  When  it  is  said  that  the  doctrine  proves  the 
miracle,  and  the  miracle  the  doctrine,  it  is  obvious,  as  War- 
burton  has  judiciously  remarked,  that  "the  term  doctrine, 
in  the  first  proposition,  is  used  to  signify  a  doctrine  agree- 
able to  the  truth  of  things,  and  demonstrated  to  he  so  by  nat- 
ural light.  In  the  second  proposition,  the  term  doctrine  is 
used  to  signify  a  doctrine  immediately  and  in  an  extraor- 
dinary manner  revealed  by  God.  So  that  these  different 
significations  in  the  declared  use  of  the  word  doctrine,  in 
two  propositions,  sets  the  whole  reasoning  free  from  that 
vicious  circle  within  which  our  philosophic  conjurors  would 
confine  it.  In  this  there  is  no  fruitless  return  of  an  unpro- 
gressive  argument,  but  a  regular  procession  of  two  distinct 
and  different  truths,  till  the  whole  reasoning  becomes  com- 
plete. In  truth,  they  afford  mutual  assistance  to  one 
another,  yet  not  by  taking  back  after  the  turn  lias  been 
served  what  they  had  given,  but  by  continuing  to  hold 
w^iat  each  had  imparted  to  the  support  of  the  other."  ^  The 
whole  argument  may  be  stated  in  a  single  sentence :  The 
goodness  of  the  doctrine  proves  the  divinity  of  the  miracle ; 
the  divinity  of  the  miracle  proves  not  the  goodness — that 
would  be  the  circle — but  the  divine  authority  of  the  doctrine. 
But  though  we  admit  that  this  reasoning  is  valid  as  to 
form,  we  cannot  make  the  same  concession  in  relation  to  its 
matter.  We  cannot  bring  ourselves  to  believe  that  any 
created  being,  whether  seraph  or  devil,  can  work  a  real 
miracle.  We  hold  that  this  is  the  exclusive  prerogative  of 
God.  The  only  power  which  any  creature  possesses  over 
nature  is  the  power  which  results  from  the  knowledge  of, 
1  Divine  Legation,  Book  ix.,  chap.  5. 


MIRACLES.  235 

and  consists  in  obedience  to,  her  laws.  No  finite  being  can 
make  or  unmake  a  single  substance,  nor  impart  to  matter  or 
to  mind  a  single  original  property.  Nature  is  what  God 
made  it,  her  laws  Avhat  God  appointed;  and  no  orders  of  finite 
intelligence,  however  exalted,  can  ever  rise  above  nature, 
for  they  are  all  parts  of  it,  nor  accomplish  a  single  result 
independently  of  the  properties  and  laws  which  God  has 
ordained.  They,  like  man,  can  only  conquer  by  obeying. 
They  may  through  superior  knowledge  effect  combinations 
and  invent  machinery  which  to  the  ignorant  and  unin- 
structed  may  produce  effects  that  shall  appear  to  transcend 
the  capabilities  of  a  creature,  but  they  can  never  rise  above, 
nor  dispense  with,  the  laws  they  have  mastered.  They  may 
reach  the  mirah'de,  but  never  the  miraculum}  It  was  to  set 
in  a  clear  light  the  truth  that  the  miracle  from  its  very 
essence  transcends  the  only  species  of  power  which  we  can 
ascribe  to  creatures,  that  we  were  so  earnest  in  fixing  the 
definition  of  it  as  something  above  or  contradictory  to 
nature.  The  power  which  works  a  miracle  is  evidently 
creative;  the  same  Avhich  first  gave  to  the  universe  its  being, 
to  all  substances  their  properties,  and  to  the  course  of  things 
its  laws.  It  is  the  power  of  Omnipotence.  Hence,  wher- 
ever there  is  a  real  miracle,  there  is  and  must  be  the  finger 
of  God.     Neither  can  this  power  be  delegated  to  a  creature. 

^  Tlie  distinction  between  finite  power  and  that  by  which  a  real  miracle 
is  wrought,  and  between  real  and  relative  miracles,  is  clearly  stated  by 
Aquinas,  Summa  1,  Quest,  ex.,  Art.  iv. :  "  Miraculum  proprie  dicitur,  cum 
aliquid  sit  prteter  ordinem  naturae,  Sed  non  sufficit  ad  rationem  mira- 
culi,  si  aliquid  fiat  prseter  ordinem  naturte  alicujus  particulari.s :  quia  sic 
cum  aliquis  projicit  lapidem  sursum,  miraculum  faceret,  cum  hoc  sit 
prteter  ordinem  naturre  lapidis.  Ex  hoc  ergo  aliquid  dicitur  esse  mira- 
culum quod  sit  prseter  ordinem  totins  naturae  creatse.  Hoc  antem  non 
potest  facere  nisi  Deus;  quia  qnicquid  facit  angelus,  vel  qua^cun(}ue  alia 
creatura  propria  virtute,  hoc  sit  secundum  ordinem  naturae  crcata- ;  et  sic 
non  est  miraculum. 

"  Quia  non  omnis  virtus  natura^  creata>  est  nota  nobis,  ideo  cum  aliquid 
sit  prseter  ordinem  naturae  creatae  nobis  nota;  per  virtutem  creatam  nobis 
ignotam,  est  miraculum  quoad  nos.  Sic  igitur  cum  dremones  aliquid 
faciunt  sua  virtute  naturali,  mimcula  dicuntur  non  simpliciter,  sed  quoad 
nos."     Compare  2.  2.,  Quest,  clxxviii.,  Art.  ii. 


Z3b  MIRACLES. 

He  is,  in  no  case,  even  the  instrument  of  its  exercise.  If 
imparted  to  him  as  a  habit,  it  would  be  like  every  other 
faculty  subject  to  his  discretion ;  if  only  as  a  transient 
virtue,  it  would  still  be  a  part  of  himself,  and  we  cannot 
conceive  that  even  for  a  moment  infinite  power  could  be 
resident  in  the  finite.^  The  Prophet  or  Apostle  accordingly 
never  performs  the  miracle.  He  is  only  the  prophet  of  the 
presence  of  God.  He  announces  what  the  Lord  of  nature 
will  do,  and  not  what  he  himself  is  about  to  perform.  Tlie 
case  is  well  put  by  Dr.  Ward  law  : 

"Another  observation  still  requires  to  be  made — made,  that  is,  more 
pointedly,  for  it  has  already  been  alluded  to — I  mean  that  in  the  work- 
ing of  a  miracle  there  is  in  every  case  a  direct  and  immediate  inter- 
ference of  Deity.  There  is  no  transference  of  power  from  God  to 
the  divinely-commissioned  messenger.  Neither  is  there  any  commit- 
ting of  Divine  Omnipotence  to  his  discretion.  The  former  is,  in 
the  nature  of  the  thing,  impossible.  It  would  be  making  the  crea- 
ture for  the  time  almighty,  and  that  (since  omnipotence  can  belong 
to  none  but  Divinity)  would  be  equivalent  to  making  him  God.  And 
the  latter,  were  it  at  all  imaginable,  would  neutralize  and  nullify  the 
evidence,  inasmuch  as  it  would  render  necessary  to  its  validity  a  pre- 
vious assurance  of  the  imx>eccahility  of  the  person  to  whom  the  tmst 
was  committed — that  is,  an  assurance,  and  an  absolute  one,  of  the 
impossibility  of  its  being  ever  perverted  by  the  improper  application 
of  the  power  to  purposes  foreign  to  those  of  his  commission.  Om- 
nipotence placed  at  a  creature's  discretion  is  indeed  as  real  an  impos- 
sibility in  the  Divine  administration  as  the  endowing  of  a  creature 
with  the  attribute  itself;  for,  in  truth,  if  the  power  remains  with  God, 
it  would  amount  to  the  very  same  thing  as  God  subjecting  Himself  to 
His  creature's  arbitrary  and  capricious  will.  Tiiere  is,  strictly  speak- 
ing, in  any  miracle  no  agency  but  that  of  the  Divine  Being  Himself 
Even  to  speak  of  the  messenger  as  His  instrument  is  not  correct.     All 

^  The  same  doctrine  is  enunciated  by  Dr.  Hinds,  Part  ii.,  ^  4,  p.  120.  It 
is  also  found,  as  to  its  leading  thought,  in  Aquinas,  Sunima  2.  2.,  Quest. 
clxxviii.,  Art.  i. :  "Operatic  virtutum  (miracles)  se  extendit  ad  omnia 
qun3  supernaturaliter  fieri  possunt ;  quorum  quidem  causa  est  divina 
omnipolentia,  quje  nulli  creaturse  communicari  protest.  Et  ideo  impos- 
sibile  est  quod  prineipium  operandi  miraeula  sit  aliqua  qualitas  habitu- 
aliter  manens  in  anima.  Sed  tamen  lioc  potest  contingerc  quod  siout 
mens  prophets  movetur  ex  iuspiratione  divina  ad  aliquid  supernaturaliter 
cognoscendum  ;  ita  etiam  mens  miraeula  facientis  moveatur  ad  faciendum 
aliquid  ad  quod  sequitur  etiectus  miraculi,  quod  Deus  sua  virtute  faeit." 


MiRAcr.ES.  237 

that  the  messenger  does  is  to  declare  his  iiicssage,  to  appeal  to  God 
for  its  truth,  and  if,  at  his  word,  intimating  a  miracle  as  about  to  be 
performed  in  proof  of  it,  the  miracle  actually  takes  place,  there  is,  on 
his  part,  in  regard  to  the  i^erformance,  neither  agency  nor  instru- 
mentality, unless  the  mere  utterance  of  words,  in  intimationof  what  is 
about  to  be  done,  or  an  appeal  to  Heaven  and  petition  for  its  being 
done,  may  be  so  called.  God  Himself  is  the  agent,  the  sole  and  im- 
mediate agent."  ^ 

The  miracle,  according  to  this  view,  requires  no  extra- 
neous support  in  authenticating  its  heavenly  origin.  It  is 
an  immediate  manifestation  of  God.  It  proclaims  His 
presence  from  the  very  nature  of  the  phenomenon.  But 
how  does  it  become  a  voucher  for  a  doctrine  or  the  Divine 
commission  of  a  teacher?  Neither  conclusion  is  implicitly 
contained  in  it,  and  notable  difficulties  have  been  raised  as 
to  the  possibility  of  establishing  spiritual  truths  by  material 
facts.  We  are  far  from  asserting  that  miracles  are  so  con- 
nected in  the  nature  of  things  with  a  Divine  commi-ssion 
that  wherever  they  are  proved  to  exist  inspiration  must  be 
admitted  as  a  necessary  inference.  There  is  no  logical  con- 
nection that  the  human  mind  is  capable  of  tracing  between 
the  supernatural  exercises  of  power  and  the  supernatural 
communication  of  knowledge.  It  is  certainly  conceivable 
that  one  might  be  able  to  heal  the  sick  and  raise  the  dead 
who  could  neither  predict  future  contingencies  nor  speak 
with  the  authority  of  God.  The  relation  betwixt  the 
miracle  and  inspiration  depends  upon  the  previous  an- 
nouncement of  its  existence.  The  man  who  professes  to 
come  from  God  must  appeal  to  the  extraordinary  interven- 
tion of  His  power.  That  appeal  makes  known  to  us  a 
connection  by  virtue  of  which  the  miracle  establishes  the 
doctrine,  not  in  its  logical  consecution,  but  by  the  extrinsic 
testimony  of  God — establishes  the  doctrine,  not  as  a  truth 
internally  apprehended,  but  a  matter  of  fact  externally 
authenticated.  It  makes  the  Almighty  a  witness  in  tlie 
case.     The  previous  appeal  is  the  great  canon  upon  which 

^  On  Miracles,  pp.  52,  58. 


238  MIRACLES. 

the  applicability  of  the  miracle,  as  a  proof,  depends;  and 
whenever  it  is  complied  with,  the  performance  of  the  mir- 
acle is  as  a  voice  from  heaven;  it  is  a  present  God  affixing 
His  seal  to  the  claims  of  His  servant.  That  this  is  the  case 
can,  we  think,  be  conclusively  evinced  by  three  consider- 
ations : 

(1.)  The  miracle  is  an  instance  of  the  reality  of  that 
which  alone  creates  any  presumption  against  the  claims  of 
the  prophet — it  is  an  example  of  the  supernatural.  There 
is  obviously  the  same  antecedent  presumption  against  the 
pretension  to  work  miracles  as  against  the  pretension  to 
inspiration.  They  are  phenomena  which  belong  to  the 
same  class,  and  the  man  who  justifies  his  pretensions  in  the 
one  case  removes  all  proper  ground  of  suspicion  in  the 
other.  He  goes  farther;  he  illustrates  an  intimacy  of  con- 
nection with  the  Deity  which  inspiration  supposes,  and  on 
account  of  which  it  is  inherently  improbable.  This  argu- 
ment is  clearly  put  by  Dr.  Hinds : 

"In  the  case  of  a  i^erson  claiming  to  be  commissioned  with  a  mes- 
sage from  God.  the  only  proof  which  ought  to  be  admitted  is  mi- 
raculous attestation  of  some  sort.  It  should  be  required  that  either 
the  person  himself  should  work  a  miracle,  or  that  a  mii-acle  should  be 
so  wi'ought,  in  connection  with  his  ministry,  as  to  remove  all  doubt  of 
its  reference  to  him  and  his  message.  The  miracle,  in  these  cases,  is, 
in  fact,  a  specimen  of  that  violation  of  the  ordinary  course  of  nature 
which  the  person  inspired  is  asserting  to  have  taken  place  in  his  ap- 
pointment and  ministry,  and  corresponds  to  the  exhibition  of  speci- 
mens and  experiments  which  we  should  require  of  a  geologist,  miner- 
alogist or  chemist  if  he  asserted  his  discovery  of  any  natural  phe- 
nomena, especially  of  any  at  variance  with  received  theories.  In  this 
latter  case,  it  would  be  only  reasonable  to  require  such  sensible  proof, 
but  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  admit  the  assertion  without  it — with- 
ovit  seeing  the  experiment  or  specimen  ourselves,  or  satisfying  our- 
selves, on  the  testimony  of  credible  witnesses,  that  it  had  been  seen 
by  others.  Equally  unreasonable  would  it  be  to  admit  any  person's 
claim  to  inspiration  or  extraordinary  communion  with  Grod  without 
the  appropriate  test,  the  earnest  of  the  Spirit."  ' 

(2.)  The  miracle,  in  the  next  place,  is  not  only  a  speci- 
1  Hinds'  Inquiry,  p.  9. 


MIRACLES.  239 

men  of  the  supernutural  in  general,  bnt  a  speeimen  of  tlie 
precise  kind  of  the  snpernatnrul  which  it  is  adduced  to 
confirm ;  it  is  a  specimen  of  inspiration.  Here  the  import- 
ance of  the  doctrine  that  God  is,  in  every  case,  the  imme- 
diate worker  of  the  miracle — that  the  power  is  never 
delegated  to  a  creature — becomes  manifest.  He  who  ap- 
peals to  the  miracle  with  the  certainty  of  its  performance 
must  know  that  God  will  put  forth  His  energy.  He  is  a 
prophet  of  the  Divine  purpose,  and  therefore,  really  and 
truly,  as  to  the  event  in  question,  inspired.  As  we  are  in- 
debted to  Dr.  Wardlaw  for  this  feature  of  the  argument, 
we  shall  permit  him  to  speak  for  himself:  ^ 

"For,  having  said  that  every  prophecy  is  a  miracle,  I  have  now 
further  to  say  that  every  miracle  is  a  prophecy.  The  propheqi  is  a 
miracle  of  knowledge;  the  miracle  is  a  prophecy  of  power.  The 
power  by  which  the  miracle  is  wrought  (as  may  be  noticed  more  par- 
ticularly by  and  by),  being  Divine  power,  not  transferred  to  the  human 
messenger,  but  remaining  God's,  and  God's  alone,  and  being  by  God 
alone  directly  put  forth  for  its  eflfectuation,  it  is  plain  that  a  miracle, 
as  far  as  the  messenger  is  concerned  whose  commission  and  whose 
testimony  are  to  be  certified,  is  simply  an  intimation  of  such  Divine 
power  being  about  to  be  put  forth  by  Him  who  alone  possesses  it,  to 
l)roduce  an  effect  which  He  alone  is  able  to  accomplish.  And  to  make 
this  still  more  manifest:  if  we  only  suppose  that  the  production  of 
the  miraculous  effect  is  not  immediate,  not  to  take  place  at  the  mo- 
ment of  its  intimation,  but  fixed  in  the  messenger's  announcement 
for  a  precise  time  in  the  somewhat  distant  future ;  in  that  case,  when 
the  time  came,  and  the  power  was  put  forth,  and  the  miracle  wrought 
accordingly,  we  should  have,  you  will  at  once  perceive,  a  miracle  and 
a  fulfilled  prophecy  in  the  same  event;  we  should  have,  in  that  one 
event,  the  evidence  of  the  miracle  of  knowledge  and  the  miracle  of 
power  united. ' '  ^ 

"And  there  is  in  connection  with  the  miracle  of  power,  a  miracle 
of  knowledge,  consisting  in  such  a  secret  supernatural  communication 
between  Jhe  mind  of  God  and  the  mind  of  His  servant  as  imjiarts  to 

'  The  same  thought  is  found  in  Dr.  Hinds,  but  it  had  escaped  our  no- 
tice until  we  had  read  the  work  of  Dr.  Wardlaw.  It  is  not  so  clearly 
stated  by  Dr.  Hinds  as  by  Dr.  Wardlaw,  and  Dr.  Hinds  does  not  seem  to 
have  appreciated  its  hearing  upon  the  testimonial  character  of  the  miracle. 
See  Hinds'  Inquiry,  p.  120. 

2  On  Miracles,  pp.  32,  33. 


240  MIRACLES. 

the  latter  the  perfect  assurance  that  God  iciU,  at  the  moment,  put 
forth  the  necessarj'  power— that  he  certainlj'  loill  strike  in  with  His 
miraculous  attestation. ' '  ^ 

The  miracle,  therefore,  being  an  instance,  is  a  proof,  of 
inspiration. 

(3.)  The  third  consideration  is  drawn  from  the  character 
of  God.  It  is  not  to  be  presumed  that  He  will  prostitute 
His  power  to  the  purposes  of  deception  and  fraud ;  and 
yet  if  he  works  a  miracle  at  the  bidding  of  an  impostor 
He  becomes  a  party  to  a  double  lie.  He  endorses  equally 
the  claim  to  supernatural  power  and  supernatural  know- 
ledge. The  whole  thing  becomes  a  scene  of  complicated 
wickedness.  First,  a  creature  with  intolerable  audacity 
professes  to  be  in  intimate  communion  with  his  Maker; 
then,  with  a  still  more  intolerable  profaneness,  takes  the 
name  of  God  in  vain,  not  only  by  pronouncing  it  upon  his 
lip,  but  by  demanding  a  manifestation  of  the  Divine  pres- 
ence; and  the  supposition  is  that  God  acquiesces  in  his 
blasphemy,  succumbs  to  his  behests  and  fosters  his  designs. 
We  cannot  conceive  of  anything  more  atrocious.  The 
miracle,  as  we  have  seen,  is,  in  every  case,  the  immediate 
operation  of  Divine  power.  The  man  is  not  even  the  in- 
strument; he  is  only  the  prophet  of  the  Divine  purpose. 
Now,  to  say  that  God's  power  shall  be  subject  to  his  arbi- 
trary dictation  is  to  say  that  the  Almighty  becomes  a  tool 
to  answer  the  ends  of  imposture  and  flilsehood,  a  willing 
instrument  to  propagate  deceit.  If  a  creature,  by  habitual 
virtue,  were  able  to  effect  a  miracle,  the  case  would  be 
different.  We  might  not  be  competent  to  say  how  far 
God's  goodness  should  interfere  to  restrain  its  discretion. 
But  the  question  is  of  the  immediate  agency  of  God  Him- 
self;  and  then  it  is  wicked  to  think,  much  more  deliberately 
to  propose  the  problem,  how  far  He  can  lend  Himself  as  a 
party  to  a  fraud.  This  consideration  seems  to  us  to  con- 
clude the  controversy.  We  concur  most  heartily  in  the 
earnest  representation  of  Dr.  Wardlaw: 
1  On  Miracles,  p.  53. 


MIRACLES.  241 

"  If  a  man  announces  himself  as  having  been  commissioned  by 
God  to  propound  a  certain  doctrine  or  system  of  doctrines,  as  from 
Him,  and  for  the  truth  of  his  commission  and  his  communication 
appeals  to  works  such  as  no  power  but  that  of  God  can  effect;  if, 
upon  his  making  this  appeal,  these  works  are  instantly  and  openly 
done  at  his  bidding ;  there  is  no  evading  of  the  conclusion  that  this 
is  a  Divine  inttrposition,  at  the  moment,  in  attestation  of  the  authority 
he  claims,  and  of  the  truth  of  what  is  declared.  The  professed  Di- 
vine ambassador  says:  '  This  is  from  God;'  and  God,  by  the  instant 
intervention  of  the  miracle,  sets  His  seal  to  it — says,  as  by  a  voice 
from  heaven,  if  not  even  more  decisively,  '  It  is  from  Me  /'  The  sole 
questions  requiring  to  be  answered,  in  order  to  the  legitimacy  of  the 
conclusion,  are  these  two:  '  Is  the  icorh  one  ichich  God  alone  can  do  f 
and  '  7s  it  actually  done  T  If  these  questions  are  settled  in  the 
affirmative,  there  is  no  reasonable  ground  on  which  the  conclusion  can 
be  withstood."  * 

The  foregoing  reasoning,  as  to  the  testimonial  connection 
between  the  miracle  and  inspiration,  seems  to  us  to  be 
abundantly  confirmed  by  the  example  of  our  Lord.  In 
the  case  of  the  paralytic  He  claimed,  in  the  first  instance, 
to  exercise  a  special  prerogative  of  God.  The  scribes  were 
shocked  at  the  blasphemy.  They  looked  upon  it  as  alto- 
gether incredible  that  a  man  should  be  intrusted  with  any 
such  authority.  "And  Jesus,  knowing  their  thoughts,  said. 
Wherefore  think  ye  evil  in  your  hearts?  For  whether  is 
easier  to  say,  Thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee;  or  to  say.  Arise, 
and  walk?"  That  is.  Which  is  antecedently  the  most  im- 
probable, that  I  should  be  commissioned  to  forgive  sin,  or 
to  control  the  course  of  nature?  Is  there  not  the  same 
presumption  against  the  one  as  the  other?  Are  they  not 
both  equally  the  supernatural,  and,  in  that  respect,  equally 
unlikely?  If,  now,  I  can  demonstrate  to  your  senses  that  I 
have  the  power  in  one  case,  will  not  that  convince  you  tliat 
I  have  it  also  in  the  other?  If,  by  a  word,  I  can  arrest 
this  disease  and  restore  health  and  energy  to  tliis  palsied 
frame,  will  you  not  believe  that  I  am  likewise  commissioned 
to  remit  sin?  Their  silence  indicated  that  the  scribes 
acknowledged  the  force  of  the  appeal.  They  instinctively 
'  On  Miracles,  p.  51. 
Vol.  III.— 1G 


242  MIRACLES. 

felt  that  if  Jesus  could  do  the  one,  there  was  no  reason  for 
saying  that  He  could  not  do  the  other.  The  intrinsic  im- 
probability of  both  was  precisely  the  same.  "  But  that  ye 
may  know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath  power  on  earth  to 
forgive  sins,  (then  saith  He  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy,)  Arise, 
take  up  thy  bed,  and  go  unto  thine  house.  And  he  arose, 
and  departed  to  his  house."  The  effect  was  electric;  the 
multitudes  felt  that  He  had  made  out  His  case,  "and  they 
marvelled,  and  glorified  God,  which  had  given  such  power 
unto  men."  We  venture  to  say  that  the  same  effect  would 
have  been  produced  u^on  every  unsophisticated  mind  that 
witnessed  the  scene. 

In  this  case  all  the  conditions  of  our  argument  are  com- 
plied with.  The  miracle  is  appealed  to  as  the  proof  of  the 
commission ;  it  is  treated  as  belonging  to  the  same  category 
of  the  supernatural,  as  being  a  specimen  of  the  kind  of 
thing  which  is  claimed,  and  as  pledging  the  character  of 
God  for  the  truth  of  what  is  affirmed. 

This  case  seems  to  us  to  go  still  farther,  and  implicitly  to 
rebuke  the  opinion  of  those  who  make  the  doctrine  vouch 
for  the  Divine  original  of  the  miracle.  The  Jews  were 
right  in  insisting  upon  the  exclusive  authority  of  God  to 
pardon  sin.  It  was  blasphemy  for  a  creature  to  claim  and 
exercise  the  power  in  his  own  name.  No  such  doctrine 
could  commend  itself  to  a  Jew  as  good.  If,  therefore,  the 
pretensions  of  the  Saviour,  in  the  case  before  us,  had  been 
tried  only  upon  internal  grounds,  or  if  the  miracle  had  been 
estimated  only  by  the  nature  of  the  truth  it  was  invoked  to 
sustain,  there  would  have  been  some  pretext  for  the  blas- 
phemous insinuation  that  He  wrought  His  wonders  by  the 
finger  of  Beelzebub.  Besides,  there  are  other  instances  in 
which  Jesus  appealed  from  the  internal  improbability  of 
the  doctrine  to  the  external  authority  of  the  miracle.  When 
He  announced  the  truths  in  reference  to  His  own  person, 
offices  and  works  which  were  so  offensive  to  his  country- 
men, on  account  of  their  alleged  discrepancy  with  the  per- 
vading tenor  of  the  Prophets,  He  in  no  case  undertakes  to 


MIRACLES.  243 

oV)viate  their  piH^iulioes  by  removing  the  ground  of  their 
objections,  and  showing  that  the  doctrine  was  intrinsically 
excellent,  but  appeals  directly  and  at  once  to  the  miracle  as 
to  that  which  ought  to  be  an  end  of  controversy.  "The 
Avorks  that  I  do  in  my  Father's  name,  they  bear  witness  of 
me.  If  I  do  not  the  w^orks  of  my  Father,  believe  me  not. 
But  if  I  do,  though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works, 
that  ye  may  know  and  believe  that  the  Father  is  in  me,  and 
I  in  Him."  He  suspends  the  guilt  of  the  Jews  in  rejecting 
Him  upon  the  sufficiency  of  His  miracles  to  authenticate 
His  mission.  "  If  I  had  not  done  among  them  the  works 
Avhich  none  other  man  did,  they  had  not  had  sin." 

The  theory  which  proves  the  doctrine  by  the  miracle  is  so 
much  more  simple,  obvious  and  direct,  and  so  much  more  in 
accordance  with  the  general  tone  of  Scripture  and  the  spon- 
taneous suggestions  of  our  own  minds,  that  no  counter- 
hypothesis  w^ould  ever  have  been  devised  had  it  not  been 
for  the  philosophic  error  that  real  miracles  may  be  per- 
formed by  a  power  inherent  in  the  spirits  of  evil.  That 
error  w^e  have  exposed  as  arising  from  a  WTong  conception 
of  the  nature  of  finite  poAver,  and  the  argument  may  be 
regarded  as  complete  that  miracles  are  always  the  great  seal 
of  heaven,  infallible  credentials  of  a  Divine  commission. 
Whoever  works  them  must  have  God  with  him. 

But  it  may  be  objected  that  it  avails  nothing  to  prove 
that  God  is  the  only  author  of  a  real  miracle,  and  that  all 
such  miracles  impress  the  seal  of  His  authority  upon  the 
doctrine,  so  long  as  it  is  admitted  that  superior  intelligences 
can  produce  effects  wdiich  to  us  in  our  ignorance  shall  seem 
to  be  miraculous.  We  want  a  criterion  by  which  to  distin- 
guish these  achievements  of  a  higher  knowledge  from  the 
supernatural  Avorks  of  God.  Cudworth  applies  the  term 
supernatural  to  both  classes  of  effects,  though  he  is  careful 
to  indicate  that  the  feats  of  demons  do  not  transcend  the 
sphere  of  nature  and  her  laws.  "  Wherefore  it  seems," 
says  he,  "  that  there  are  two  sorts  of  miracles  or  effects 
supernatural.      First,  such   as,  though  they  could  not  be 


244  MIRACLES. 

done  by  any  ordinary  and  natural  causes  here  amongst  us, 
and  in  that  respect  may  be  called  supernatural,  yet  might 
notwithstanding  be  done,  God  permitting  only,  by  the  ordi- 
nary and  natural  poAver  of  other  invisible  created  spirits, 
angels  or  demons.  As,  for  example,  if  a  stone  or  other 
heavy  body  should  first  ascend  upward,  and  then  hang  in 
the  air  without  any  visible  either  mover  or  supporter,  this 
would  be  to  us  a  miracle  or  effect  supernatural,  and  yet, 
according  to  vulgar  opinion,  might  this  be  done  by  the  nat- 
ural power  of  created,  invisible  beings,  angels  or  demons, 
God  only  permitting,  without  whose  special  providence,  it  is 
conceived,  they  cannot  thus  intermeddle  with  our  human 
affairs.  .  .  .  But,  secondly,  there  is  another  sort  of  mira- 
cles, or  effects  supernatural,  such  as  are  above  the  power 
of  all  second  causes,  or  any  natural  created  being  whatso- 
ever, and  so  can  be  attributed  to  none  but  God  Almighty 
Himself,  the  Author  of  nature,  who,  therefore,  can  control 
it  at  pleasure." 

The  distinction  is  a  just  one,  though  we  do  not  like  the 
application  of  the  terms  miracle  and  supernatural  to  the 
first  class ;  the  broad  line  which  distinguishes  them  from  the 
works  of  God  is  that  they  are  within  the  sphere  of  nature. 
But  still,  may  not  these  achievements  of  the  creature  be 
palmed  upon  us  as  real  miracles,  and  are  we  not  in  danger 
of  being  deceived  by  them,  unless  we  have  some  criterion 
apart  from  the  nature  of  the  phenomena  by  which  we  can 
distinguish  the  real  from  the  apparent?  Must  we  not, 
after  all,  fall  back  upon  the  doctrine  to  settle  the  question 
whether  a  real  miracle  has  been  wrought — whether  the 
phenomena  in  question  are  in  the  sphere  of  the  natural  or 
not?  This  evidently  comes  to  the  same  thing  with  the 
hypothesis  we  have  been  endeavouring  to  set  aside,  and  if 
it  could  be  consistently  maintained,  all  that  we  have  said 
would  go  for  nothing.  But  among  those  who  concur  in 
our  views  of  the  testimonial  character  of  the  miracle,  the 
difficulty  is  commonly  solved  by  appealing  to  the  goodness 
of  God.     The  theory  is,  that  God  will  not  permit  His  weak 


MIRACLES.  245 

and  ignorant  creatures  to  be  deceived  by  counterfeits  of 
His  OM'n  seal,  He  will  not  suifer  demons  to  imitate  miracles 
in  cases  in  which  they  are  likely  to  mislead,  He  will  restrain 
the  exercise  of  their  power.  This,  if  we  understand  him, 
is  the  position  which  Dr.  Wardlaw  has  taken.  It  is  the 
position  taken  by  Mosheim  in  his  valuable  notes  to  Cud- 
worth.  God  will  never  suffer  anything  that  can  be  fairly 
taken  for  a  miracle,  or  that  is  calculated  to  have  that  effect 
upon  us,  to  be  wrought  in  attestation  of  falsehood.  AVe 
must  be  permitted  to  say  that  the  inference  here  is  contra- 
dicted by  all  analogy.  We  have  no  means  of  ascertaining 
beforehand  how  far  God  is  likely  to  limit  the  discretion  of 
His  creatures,  or  to  prevent  the  machinations  of  malignity 
and  falsehood.  The  argument  from  His  goodness  is  shown 
to  be  lame  from  the  uniform  experience  of  the  world.  We 
see  nothing  in  the  distinctions  of  Dr.  Wardlaw  to  render 
that  experience  inapplicable  to  the  case. 

The  effect  of  all  such  prevarications  and  evasions  is  to 
destroy  the  value  of  the  miracle  as  a  proof.  If  it  possesses 
no  authority  in  itself  except  as  supported  by  foreign  con- 
siderations, and  if  these  are  neither  clear  nor  obvious,  it 
seems  to  be  of  comparatively  little  use;  it  is  better  to  eject 
it  from  the  scheme  of  evidences  at  once.  But  these  distinc- 
tions are  altogether  unnecessary.  The  true  doctrine  is,  that, 
as  the  miracle  proves  by  an  evidence  inherent  in  itself,  no 
miracles  should  be  admitted  as  the  credentials  of  a  mes- 
senger or  doctrine  but  those  which  carry  their  authority 
npon  their  face.  Doubtful  miracles  are  in  the  same  cate- 
gory with  doubtful  arguments;  and  if  a  religion  relies  upon 
this  class  alone  to  substantiate  its  claims,  it  relies  upon  a 
broken  reed.  There  are  unquestionably  phenomena  which, 
surveyed  from  a  higher  point  of  knowledge,  we  should  per- 
ceive at  once  to  be  perfectly  natural,  and  yet  to  us  they  may 
have  the  wonder  and  the  marvel  of  the  true  miracle.  We 
can  lay  down  no  criteria  by  which  to  distinguish  in  every 
case  l)etwixt  the  natural  and  the  supernatural.  The  effect 
is,  where   the   line  cannot  be  drawn,  that  the  wonders  are 


246  MIRACLES, 

not  to  be  accepted.  We  do  not  know  them  to  he  miracles, 
and  consequently  have  no  right  to  give  them  the  weight 
of  miracles.  When  the  witness  is  suspected,  w^e  discard 
his  testimony.  Let  it  be  conceded  that  the  doctrine  is  good ; 
that  only  shows  it  to  be  true,  and  not  that  God  has  revealed 
it.  The  same  superior  knowledge  which  enables  a  demon 
to  transcend  my  experience  of  nature,  may  enable  him  to 
transcend  my  science;  and  so,  after  all,  the  good  doctrine 
may  come  to  me  from  a  very  bad  source.  Devils  some- 
times speak  truth,  though  not  from  the  love  of  it.  Shall 
we  say  that  God  will  prohibit  them  from  trifling  ^^■ith  our 
credulity?  This  may  be  a  trial  of  our  undei-standings ; 
the  design  may  be  to  measure  our  love  of  truth,  and  to  see 
whether  we  shall  narrowly  scrutinize  the  evidence  which  is 
submitted  to  our  minds.  We  know  not  how  far  it  may  be 
proper  that  God  should  restrain  His  creatures  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  their  own  energies.  Suppose  an  unprincipled 
man  of  science  should  go  among  savages,  and  find  that  his 
attainments  could  give  to  him  the  distinction  of  being  the 
great  power  of  God,  would  God  arrest  his  exhibitions  be- 
cause they  were  deceiving  and  cheating  the  ignorant  multi- 
tude? Has  he  ever  arrested  the  frauds  of  jjriests  who, 
under  the  guise  of  a  rare  acquaintance  Avith  philosophy, 
have  gulled  the  populace  with  their  marvellous  achieve- 
ments ?  This  hypothesis  is  destitute  of  all  probability  and 
of  all  analogy.  The  only -consistent  course  is  to  treat  all 
suspected  miracles  as  we  treat  all  prevaricating  witnesses. 
And  if  there  were  no  other  kinds  of  miracles  but  these,  w^e 
should  say  that  no  doctrine  could  be  authenticated  by  such 
evidence.  But,  as  Cudworth  has  suggestetl,  there  are  some 
miracles  which  carry  their  credentials  upon  their  face — so 
clearly  above  nature  and  all  secondary  causes  that  no  one 
can  hesitate  an  instant  as  to  their  real  character.  There 
are  some  things  which  we  pronounce  intuitively  to  be  the 
sole  prerogative  of  God.  Others  may  be  doubtful,  but 
these  are  clear  as  light.  This  is  the  class  of  miracles  on 
which  a  reli";ion  must  rely.      These  are  seals  where  the 


MIRACLES.  247 

impression  is  distinct  and  legible — abont  which  there  can 
be  no  hesitation  or  uncertainty.  These  are  the  conclusive 
arguments  to  which  a  sound  understanding  feels  itself 
justified  in  adhering.  That  the  criterion  of  the  miracle 
must  be  sought  in  itself,  and  that,  where  such  a  criterion 
cannot  be  definitely  traced,  the  effect  of  the  miracle  as  a 
proof  is  destroyed,  is  only  the  application  to  this  depart- 
ment of  evidence  of  the  universal  rules  of  probability.  An 
argument  must  consist  in  its  own  light ;  and  according  as 
that  light  is  feeble  or  strong  the  argument  is  weak  or  con- 
clusive. If  a  man  should  come  to  us  professing  to  be  a 
messenger  from  God,  and  produce  no  clearer  credentials 
than  such  effects  as  Cudworth  has  enumerated — the  walking 
upon  the  water,  the  suspending  of  a  stone  in  the  air,  or  the 
cleaving  of  a  whetstone  by  a  razor,  effects  which  might  un- 
questionably be  produced  by  higher  laws  suspending  or 
holding  in  check  the  lower — we  should  feel  no  more  dif- 
ficulty in  rejecting  him  than  in  rejecting  a  pretended  syl- 
logism with  two  terms,  or  a  prevaricating  witness.  His 
pretensions  might  be  true,  but  we  should  quote  to  him  the 
maxim,  "  De  non  apparentibus  et  non  existentlbus,  eadem  est 
ratio.'' 

"When  we  turn  to  the  miracles  of  the  Bible,  wnth  a  few 
trifling  exceptions,  which  are  redeemed  from  suspicion  by 
their  connection  with  the  others,  as  doubtful  testimony  may 
be  confirmed  by  corroborating  circumstances, — when  we 
turn  to  the  miracles  of  the  Bible,  we  feel  intuitively  that 
they  are  of  a  character  in  themselves  and  on  a  scale  of 
magnitude  which  render  the  supposition  of  secondary 
causes  ridiculously  absurd.  The  scenes  at  the  Red  Sea, 
the  cleaving  of  the  waters,  the  passing  over  of  the  Israelites 
on  dry  land  between  the  fluid  walls,  the  pillar  of  cloud  by 
day  and  of  fire  by  night,  the  daily  supply  of  manna  from 
the  skies, — effects  like  these  carry  the  evidence  of  their 
original  on  their  face.  There  is  no  room  for  doubt.  And 
so,  in  the  New  Testament,  the  conversion  of  water  into 
wine;  the  stilling  of  the  tempest;  the  raising  of  the  dead; 


248  illRACLES. 

the  instant  cure,  without  means  or  appliances,  of  invet- 
erate diseases;  the  feeding  of  thousands  with  a  few  loaves, 
which  involves  the  highest  possible  exercise  of  power,  that 
of  creation ;  and,  above  all,  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  him- 
self,— cases  like  these  have  nothing  of  ambiguity  in  them. 
They  reveal,  at  a  glance,  the  very  finger  of  God,  The 
supernatural  and  the  contranatural  are  so  flagrant  and 
glaring  that  he  that  runs  may  read.  We  may  not  be  able 
to  say  what  a  devil  or  an  angel  can  do  ;  but  there  are  some 
things  which  we  can  confidently  say  that  he  cannot  do  ;  and 
these  are  the  things  from  which  the  miracles  of  our  religion 
have  been  chosen. 

We  have  insisted  upon  this  point  iat  some  length,  because 
the  neglect  of  the  distinction  has  been  at  the  bottom  of  all 
the  frivolous  evasions  which  have  had  no  other  tendency 
than  to  weaken  our  faith  in  the  Divine  authority  of  the 
miracle. 

The  place,  consequently,  which  we  are  disposed,  as  the 
reader  may  already  have  collected,  to  assign  to  the  miracle 
is  the  very  front  rank  in  the  Christian  evidences.  We  can- 
not understand  how  the  question  of  a  revelation  or  a  Divine 
commission  can  be  entertained  at  all  until  the  credentials 
are  produced.  Mr.  Trench  laments  the  stress  which  has 
been  laid  upon  them  by  modern  apologists,  and  thinks  it 
has  contributed  to  obscure  or  to  weaken  the  spiritual  power 
of  the  Gospel.  We  are  not  prepared  to  deny  that  many 
have  been  strenuous  advocates  of  the  miracles  who  Avere 
strangers  to  the  life  of  Christianity.  It  is  one  thing  to 
believe  in  miracles,  and  quite  another  to  believe  in  the 
Saviour  of  mankind.  Faith  in  the  Divine  authority  of 
our  religion  is  not  necessarily  faith  in  Christ.  We  admit 
all  that  he  has  said  of  the  beauty,  and  glory,  and  self-evi- 
dencing light  of  the  doctrine,  and  subscribe  fully  to  the 
sentiment  contained  in  the  passage  of  Calvin's  Institutes, 
to  which  he  has  referred  us.  That  passage  asserts  what  all 
the  creeds  and  confessions  of  the  reformed  churches,  and  tlie 
creeds  and  confessions  of  martyrs  and  saints  in  all  ages  of 


MIRACLES.  249 

the  world  have  always  asserted,  that  true  faith  in  Jesus  is 
not  the  offspring  of  logic  or  philosophy ;  it  is  no  creature 
of  earth,  but  the  gift  of  heaven,  the  production  of  God's 
Holy  Spirit.  AYe  would  detract  nothing  from  the  inward 
light  and  power  of  the  Gospel,  or  from  the  need  of  super- 
natural grace.  Neither,  again,  do  avc  complain  that  ]\Ir. 
Trench  has  signalized  the  ethical  value  of  the  Christian 
miracles  as  being  at  once  types  and  prophecies  of  greater 
works  upon  the  soul.  He  has  made  an  important  contri- 
bution to  our  literature  by  the  successful  manner  in  which 
he  has  illustrated  this  principle  in  his  rich  and  valuable 
Notes.  AVe  agree,  too,  that  the  appearance  of  such  a  being 
as  Jesus  would  have  been  wanting  in  consistency  if  nature 
had  not  been  made  to  do  homage  to  His  name.  An  incar- 
nate God  could  hardly  walk  the  earth  without  unwonted 
indications  of  His  presence.  Such  a  wonder  must  needs 
draw  other  wonders  after  it,  and  Mr.  Trench  has  strikingly 
displayed  this  aspect  of  the  importance  of  miracles.  But 
still  it  does  not  follow  that  because  miracles  are  graceful 
complements  of  the  mission  of  Christ  that  their  only  use  or 
their  chief  use  is  their  typical  relations  to  grace,  and  their 
harmony  with  the  character  and  claims  of  the  Saviour. 
We  maintain,  on  the  contrary,  that  their  principal  office  is 
to  guaranty  an  external,  objective  revelation  by  which  we  can 
try  the  spirits  whether  they  be  of  God.  They  are  the  cri- 
terion by  which  a  real  is  distinguished  from  a  pretended 
revelation,  the  mark  by  which  we  know  that  God  has 
spoken,  and  discriminate  His  Word  from  the  words  of 
men.  An  external,  objective,  palpable  test  is  the  only  one 
which  can  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  case.  If  men  are 
thrown  upon  their  intuitions,  impulses  and  emotions,  their 
pretended  revelations  will  be  as  numerous  and  discordant  as 
the  dialects  of  Babel.  Each  man  will  have  his  doctrine 
and  his  })salm.  The  necessity  of  such  a  test  has  been  uni- 
versally acknowledged.  The  Catholic  feels  it,  and  aj>peals 
to  a  visible,  infallible  society  which  is  to  judge  between  tiie 
genuine  and  spurious;  the  Protestant  feels  it,  and  a|)peals 


250  MIRACLES. 

to  his  Bible;  the  Bible  bows  to  the  same  necessity,  and 
appeals  to  miracles.  These,  it  triumphantly  exclaims,  dis- 
tinguish my  doctrines  from  those  of  every  other  book,  and 
seal  them  with  the  impress  of  God.  Here,  then,  is  a  stand- 
ard, fixed,  stable,  certain,  Avith  which  the  experiences  of  men 
must  be  compared.  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony  ;  if  they 
speak  not  according  to  this  loord,  it  is  because  there  is  no  light 
in  them.  A  religion  of  authority  is  the  only  bulwark 
against  fanaticism  on  the  one  hand,  and  a  dead  naturalism 
on  the  other. 

We  have  no  doubt  that  if  the  miracle  should  be  reduced 
to  an  obscure  or  subordinate  position  in  the  scheme  of  Chris- 
tian evidences,  the  result  would  eventually  be  that  an  author- 
itative, external  revelation  would  be  totally  discarded.  This 
was  the  progress  of  criticism  in  Germany.  Those  who 
prevaricated  with  miracles  prevaricated  with  inspiration, 
and  we  suspect  those  among  ourselves  who  are  offended  at 
the  latter  have  as  little  relish  for  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel, 
except  when  it  happens  to  chime  in  with  the  breathings  of 
their  own  minds.  We  have  never  had  apprehensions  of  any 
other  species  of  rationalism  in  this  country  but  that  which 
obtains  in  the  school  of  Schleiermacher.  We  think  that  there 
are  symptoms  in  various  quarters  that  it  is  insinuating  itself 
into  the  minds  of  those  of  our  scholars  and  reflecting  men 
who  have  not  thoroughly  studied  the  grounds  of  his  philos- 
ophy. It  invites,  by  its  warmth,  and  ardour,  and  life ;  it 
gives  a  significancy  to  the  history  of  Jesus  which  falls  in 
with  the  pensive  longings  of  a  meditative  spirit ;  it  speaks 
of  redemption,  and  pardon,  and  holiness,  and  sin ;  it 
employs,  except  in  relation  to  the  resurrection,  the  very 
language  of  piety  ;  and  seems  to  put  on  a  broad  and  per- 
manent foundation  the  holy  catholic  Church  and  the  com- 
munion of  the  saints.  But  as  it  has  no  external  standard 
of  truth,  it  must  repudiate  all  precise  dogmatic  formulas, 
and  reduce  the  doctrine  to  a  general  harmony  of  feeling  or 
pervading  uniformity  of  sentiment.  Religion  must  be  a 
life  without  a  creed.     But  as  the  understanding  must  have 


I 


MIRACLES.  251 

something  to  feed  on,  each  man  will  be  tempted  to  analyze 
the  operations  of  his  own  consciousness  of  God,  and  reduce 
to  the  precision  of  logical  representation  the  inspirations  of 
his  own  soul.  And  when  it  is  seen  that  the  religion  is  sup- 
ported by  a  philosophy  essentially  pantheistic,  that  the  dif- 
ferences betwixt  holiness  and  sin  are  stripped  of  all  moral 
import,  and  that  a  stern  necessity  underlies  the  whole  con- 
stitution of  things,  we  may  well  tremble  at  the  results, 
should  this  scheme  be  introduced  in  place  of  an  authorita- 
tive Bible.  It  is  because  we  feel  that  the  tendency  of 
every  disparaging  remark  in  relation  to  miracles  is  to  set 
aside  the  Bible,  in  the  aspect  of  authority,  that  we  are  so 
earnest  to  rebuke  it.  We  love  spiritual  religion,  but  we  abhor 
fanaticism.  We  detest  bigotry,  but  we  love  the  truth;  and 
we  believe  that  there  is  a  truth  in  relation  to  God  and  to 
ourselves  which  ought  to  be  embraced  in  the  form  of  defi- 
nite propositions,  and  not  apprehended  as  vague  sentiments. 
There  are  truths  which  are  powerful  in  proportion  as  they 
are  clear  and  articulate,  and  worthless  unless  they  are  dis- 
tinctly understood. 

3.  We  come  now  to  the  last  point  which  remains  to  be 
discussed — the  credibility  of  miracles;  and  here  we  enter 
into  the  very  citadel  of  the  controversy  between  the  friends 
and  opponents  of  Divine  revelation.  Here  the  question  is 
fairlv  encountered.  Can  God  stand  to  man  in  the  attitude 
of  a  witness  to  the  truth  ?  Can  He  declare  to  other  intel- 
ligent beings,  the  creatures  of  His  own  power,  facts  which 
He  knows,  as  one  man  can  communicate  knowledge  to 
another?  Or,  if  we  admit  the  possibility  of  individual 
inspiration,  in  conformity  with  the  laws  of  our  mental  con- 
stitution. Can  God  authenticate  that  inspiration  to  a  third 
party  ?  Can  He  enable  others  to  prove  a  commission  from 
Him  ?  To  answer  in  the  affirmative  is  to  admit  the  credi- 
bility of  miracles.  There  are  certainly  no  natural  laws  by 
which  we  can  recognize  any  communications  as  author- 
itatively from  heaven.  Whether  the  miracles  be  visible  or 
invisible;   a  supernatural  operation    upon    the    mind,   pro- 


252  MIRACLES. 

ducing  an  immediate  consciousness  of  the  Divine  voice,  or 
supernatural  phenomena  addressed  to  the  senses,  producing 
the  conviction  of  the  Divine  presence ;  no  matter  what  may 
be  the  process,  it  must  be  evidently  miraculous,  as  out  of, 
and  against,  the  ordinary  course  of  nature. 

It  would  be  obviously  impossible  to  show,  by  any  direct 
processes  of  argument,  that  there  is  anything  in  the  mode 
of  the  Divine  existence  which  precludes  the  Deity  from 
holding  intercourse  with  His  creatures  analogous  to  that 
which  they  hold  with  each  other.  "We  can  perceive  nothing 
in  the  nature  of  things  which  would  lead  us  to  suppose  that 
God  could  not  converse  with  man  or  make  man  the  mes- 
senger of  His  will. 

Analogy,  on  the  contrary,  would  suggest  that,  as  persons 
can  here  communicate  with  each  other,  as  they  can  be 
rendered  conscious  of  each  other's  existence,  as  they  can 
feel  the  presence  of  one  another  and  interchange  thoughts 
and  emotions,  the  same  thing  might  be  affirmed  of  God. 
It  is  certainly  incumbent  upon  the  Rationalist  to  show  how 
God  is  precluded  from  a  privilege  which,  so  far  as  we  know, 
pertains  to  all  other  personal  existences.  Capacity  of 
society  and  converse  seem  to  be  involved  in  the  very  nature 
of  personality,  and  it  cannot  be  demonstrated  that  there  is 
anything  more  incomprehensible  in  the  case  of  a  Divine 
than  of  a  human  testimony.  How  one  man  knows  that 
another  man,  another  intelligence,  is  before  him,  how  he 
reads  the  thoughts  and  enters  into  the  emotions  of  another 
being,  are  problems  as  profoundly  inscrutable  as  how  a  man 
shall  know  that  God  talks  with  him  and  imparts  to  him 
truths  which  neither  sense  nor  reason  could  discover.  It 
deserves  further  to  be  considered  that  as  all  worsliip  in- 
volves a  direct  address  of  the  creature  to  the  Deity,  as  man 
must  talk  to  God  as  well  as  obey  His  laws,  must  love  and 
confide  in  Him  as  well  as  tremble  before  Him — it  deserves 
to  be  considered  how  all  this  is  practicable  if  the  commu- 
nications are  all  to  be  confined  to  the  feebler  party.  Relig- 
ion necessarily  supposes  some  species  of  communion  with 


MIRACLES.  253 

the  object  of  worship,  some  sense  of  God  ;  ami  if  this  is 
possible,  we  see  not  why  the  correspondeiu-e  may  not  be 
extended  into  full  consistency  with  the  analo<>y  of  human 
intercourse.  Certain  it  is  that  the  moral  nature  of  man, 
which  loads  him  to  converse  with  God,  has  in  all  ages  in- 
duced him  to  hope  and  expect  that  God  would  converse 
with  iiim.  Every  age  has  had  its  pretensions  to  Divine 
revelations;  there  have  always  been  seers  and  prophets. 
Many  have  been  false,  have  had  nothing  intrinsic  or  ex- 
trinsic to  recommend  them,  and  yet  they  have  succeeded 
in  gaining  a  temporary  credit,  because  they  addressed  them- 
selves to  the  natural  belief  that  a  revelation  would  indeed 
be  given.  Whence  this  natural  expectation,  whence  this 
easy  credulity,  if  the  very  conception  of  a  direct  conmiuni- 
cation  from  God  involves  a  contradiction  and  absurdity  ? 

Arguments  of  this  sort  are  certainly  not  without  their 
weight.  They  never  have  been  and  they  never  can  be 
answered  in  the  way  of  direct  refutation.  The  approved 
method  is  to  set  them  aside  by  the  sweeping  ajDplication  of 
the  principle  upon  which  the  Sadducees  set  aside  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead.  Revelation  and  its  proofs  are  equally 
supernatural,  and  whatever  is  supernatural  must  be  false. 
"Xo  just  notion  of  the  true  nature  of  history,"  says  Strauss, 
"  is  possible  without  a  perception  of  the  inviolability  of 
the  chain  of  finite  causes  and  of  the  impossibility  of  mir- 
acles." The  first  negative  canon  which  this  remarkable 
author  prescribes  for  distinguishing  betwixt  the  historical 
and  fabulous,  is  "when  the  narration  is  irreconcilable  with 
the  known  and  universal  laws  which  govern  the  course  of 
events."  He  affirms  that  "  according  to  these  laws,  agree- 
ing with  all  just  philosophical  conceptions  and  all  credible 
experience,  the  absolute  cause  never  disturbs  the  chain  of 
secondary  causes  by  single  arbitrary  acts  of  interposition, 
but  rather  manifests  itself  in  the  production  of  the  aggre- 
gate of  finite  causalities  and  of  their  reciprocal  action."  In 
opposition  to  this  desolating  doctrine,  wc  shall  undertake  to 
set  in  a  clear  light  the  principh^  that  in  all  eases  <»f  enm- 


254  MIRACLES. 

petent  testimony,  where  the  witnesses  have  honestly  related 
their  own  convictions,  and  where  they  were  in  a  condition 
to  judge  of  the  facts,  possibility  is  the  sole  natural  limit  to 
belief.  We  are  bound  to  believe,  upon  competent  testimony, 
what  is  not  demonstrably  impossible.  The  application  of  this 
law  to  all  other  cases  of  antecedent  improbability  but  the 
supernatural  will  hardly  be  questioned,  and  we  shall  there- 
fore discuss  it  with  special  reference  to  miracles. 

It  would  seem  to  be  a  self-evident  proposition  that 
whatever  is,  and  at  the  same  time  is  adapted  to  our  cogni- 
tive faculties,  is  capable  of  being  known.  No  doubt  but 
that  man  is  a  little  creature,  and  that  there  are  and  for  ever 
will  remain  things  locked  up  in  the  bosom  of  Omniscience 
which  his  slender  capacities  are  unfitted  to  comprehend. 
But  then  there  are  other  things  to  which  his  faculties  are 
unquestionably  adjusted — which  are  not  only  cognizable  in 
themselves,  but  cognizable  by  him.  All  that  is  necessary 
in  reference  to  these  is,  that  they  should  stand  in  the  proper 
relation  to  the  mind.  When  this  condition  is  fulfilled 
knowledge  must  necessarily  take  place.  If  an  object  be 
visible,  and  is  placed  before  the  eye  in  a  sound  and  health- 
ful condition  of  the  organ,  it  must  be  seen;  if  a  sound 
exist,  and  is  in  the  right  relation  to  the  ear,  it  must  be 
heard.  Let  us  now  take  a  supernatural  fact,  such  as  the 
raising  of  Lazarus  from  the  dead,  as  recorded  in  the  Gospel 
of  John.  There  is  not  a  single  circumstance  connected 
with  that  event  which  lies  beyond  the  cognizance  of  our 
faculties.  Everything  that  occurred  could  be  judged  of 
by  our  senses.  That  he  was  dead,  that  he  was  buried,  that 
the  process  of  putrefaction  had  begun,  that  he  actually 
came  from  the  grave  at  the  voice  of  Jesus,  bound  hand  and 
foot  in  his  graveclothes,  and  that  he  subsequently  took  his 
part  in  human  society  as  a  living  man,  are  phenomena 
which  no  more  transcend  the  cognitive  faculties  of  man  than 
the  simplest  circumstances  of  ordinary  experience.  We  are 
not  now  vindicating  the  reality  of  this  miracle — that  is  not 
necessary  to  the  argument  in  hand.     All  that  we  contend 


MIRACLES.  255 

for  is,  that  if  it  had  been  a  fact,  or  if  any  other  real  in- 
stance of  the  kind  shoukl  ever  take  place,  there  would  be 
nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  events,  considered  as  mere 
phenomena,  which  woukl  pkice  them  beyond  the  grasp  of 
our  instruments  of  knowledge.  They  would  be  capable  of 
being  known  by  those  who  might  be  present  at  the  scene — 
capable  of  being  known  according  to  the  same  laws  which 
regulate  cognition  in  reference  to  all  sensible  appearances. 
Our  senses  would  become  the  vouchers  of  the  fact,  and  the 
constitution  of  our  nature  the  warrant  for  crediting  our 
senses. 

The  skeptic  himself  will  admit  that  if  the  first  facts  sub- 
mitted to  our  experience  were  miraculous,  there  could  be  no 
antecedent  presumption  against  them,  and  that  we  should 
be  bound  to  receive  them  with  the  same  unquestioning 
credence  with  which  a  child  receives  the  earliest  report  of 
its  senses.  This  admission  concedes  all  that  we  now  con- 
tend for — the  possibility  of  such  a  relation  of  the  .facts  to 
our  faculties  as  to  give  rise  to  knowledge — such  a  connec- 
tion betwixt  the  subject  and  object  as  to  produce,  according  to 
the  laws  of  mind,  real  cognition.  This  being  granted,  the 
question  next  arises.  Does  the  standard  of  intrinsic  proba- 
bility, which  experience  furnishes  in  analogy,  destroy  this 
connection?  Does  the  constitutional  belief,  developed  in 
experience,  that  like  antecedents  are  invariably  followed  by 
like  consequents,  preclude  us  from  believing,  subsequently 
to  experience,  what  we  should  be  compelled,  by  the  essential 
structure  of  our  nature,  to  believe  antecedently  to  experience? 
Does  analogy  force  a  man  to  say  that  he  does  not  see  what, 
if  it  were  removed,  he  would  be  bound  to  say  that  he  does 
see? 

To  maintain  the  affirmative  is  to  annihilate  the  possiI)ility 
of  knowledge.  The  indispensable  condition  of  all  know- 
ledge is  the  veracity  of  consciousness.  We  have  the  same 
guarantee  for  the  sensible  phenomena  which  are  out  of  tlie 
analogy  of  experience  as  for  those  phenomena  from  Avhich 
that  experience  has   been  developed.      If,  now,  f;onscious- 


256  MIRACLES. 

ness  cannot  be  credited  in  one  case,  it  can  be  credited  in 
none — -falsum  in  uno,  falsum  in  omnibus.  If  we  cannot 
believe  it  after  experience,  it  must  be  a  liar  and  a  cheat, 
and  we  can  have  no  grounds  for  believing  it  prior  to  expe- 
rience. Universal  skepticism  becomes  the  dictate  of  wis- 
dom, and  the  impossibility  of  truth  the  only  maxim  of 
philosophy.  Consciousness  must  be  believed  on  its  own 
account,  or  it  cannot  be  believed  at  all;  and  if  believed 
on  its  own  account,  it  is  equally  a  guarantee  for  every  class 
of  facts,  whether  supernatural  or  natural.  To  argue  back- 
ward from  a  standard  furnished  by  consciousness  to  the 
mendacity  of  consciousness  in  any  given  case  is  to  make  it 
contradict  itself,  and  thus  demonstrate  itself  to  be  utterly 
unworthy  of  credit.  There  is  no  alternative  betwixt  ad- 
mitting that,  when  a  supernatural  phenomenon  is  vouched 
for  by  consciousness,  it  is  known,  and  therefore  exists,  and 
admitting  that  no  phenomenon  whatever  can  be  known. 
This  knowledge  rests  upon  the  same  ultimate  authority  with 
all  other  knowledge. 

But  it  may  be  asked.  Is  not  the  belief  of  the  uniformity 
of  nature  a  datum  of  consciousness,  and  does  not  the  hypoth- 
esis of  miracles  equally  make  consciousness  contradict  itself? 
By  no  means.  There  is  no  real  contradiction  in  the  case. 
The  datum  of  consciousness,  as  truly  given,  is  that  under 
the  same  circumstanf es  the  same  antecedent  will  invariably 
be  followed  by  the  same  consequent.  It  is  not  that  when 
the  antecedent  is  given  the  consequent  will  invariably 
appear,  but  that  it  will  appear  if  the  conditions  upon  which 
the  operation  of  its  cause  depends  are  fulfilled.  Cases  con- 
stantly happen  in  which  the  antecedent  is  prevented  from 
putting  forth  its  efficacy ;  it  is  held  in  check  by  a  power 
superior  to  itself  "  Continually  we  behold  in  the  world 
around  us  lower  laws  held  in  restraint  by  higher,  mechanic 
by  dynamic,  chemical  by  vital,  physical  by  moral,  yet  we 
say  not  when  the  lower  thus  gives  place  to  higher  that  there 
was  any  violation  of  the  law,  that  anything  contrary  to 
nature  came  to  pass ;  rather  we  acknowledge  the  law  of  a 


MIRACLES.  257 

greater  freedom  swallowing  up  the  law  of  a  lesser.  Thus, 
when  I  lift  my  arm  the  law  of  gravitation  is  not,  as  far  as 
my  arm  is  concerned,  denied  or  annihilated ;  it  exists  as 
much  as  ever,  but  is  held  in  suspense  by  the  higher  law  of 
my  will.  The  chemical  laws  which  would  bring  about 
decay  in  animal  substances  still  subsist,  even  when  they 
are  hemmed  in  and  hindered  by  the  salt  which  keeps  these 
substances  from  corruption."^  When  the  consequents, 
therefore,  in  any  given  case  are  not  such  as  we  should  pre- 
viously have  expected,  the  natural  inference  is  not  that  our 
senses  are  mendacious,  and  that  the  facts  are  not  what  con- 
sciousness represents  them  to  be,  but  that  the  antecedents 
have  been  modified  or  counteracted  by  the  operation  of 
some  other  cause.  The  conditions  upon  which  their  connec- 
tion with  their  sequences  depends  do  not  obtain.  The  facts, 
as  given  by  the  senses,  must  be  taken,  and  the  explanation 
of  the  variety  is  a  legitimate  jjroblem  of  the  reason. 

Suppose,  for  example,  that  a  man  uninstructed  in  physi- 
cal science  should  visit  the  temple  of  Mecca,  and  behold  the 
coffin  of  Mohammed,  if  the  story  be  true,  unsustained  by  any 
visible  support,  suspended  in  the  air,  would  it  be  his  duty 
to  believe  that  because  all  experience  testifies  that  heavy 
bodies  left  to  themselves  fall  to  the  ground,  therefore  the 
phenomenon  as  given  by  his  senses  in  the  present  case  must 
be  a  delusion  ?  or  would  it  not  rather  be  the  natural  infer- 
ence, as  he  could  not  possibly  doubt  what  he  saw,  that  the 
coffin  was  not  left  to  itself — that  though  inscrutable  to  him 
there  must  be  some  cause  which  counteracted  and  held  in 
check  the  operation  of  gravity?     "In  order,"  says  Mill,^ 

^  Trench  on  Miracles,  p.  21. 

2  Mill's  System  of  Logic,  c.  xxv.,  ?  2.  This  representation  requires  to 
be  somewhat  modified,  as  it  seems  to  imply  that  a  previous  knowledge  of 
the  cause  is  necessary  to  render  the  miracle  credible,  which  is  by  no  means 
the  case.  On  the  contrary,  every  phenomenon,  whether  natural  or  super- 
natural, must  in  the  first  instance  authenticate  itself,  and  after  it  has  been 
accepted  as  a  fact  the  inquiry  into  the  cause  begins.  All  that  the  consti- 
tution of  our  nature  positively  determines  is,  tliat  it  must  have  some  cause, 
that  it  cannot  be  an  absolute  commencement.  We  do  not,  therefore,  believe 
Vol..  III.— 17 


258  MIRACLES. 


"  that  any  alleged  fact  should  be  contradictory  to  a  law  of 
causation  the  allegation  must  be,  not  simply  that  the  cause 
existed  without  being  followed  by  the  effect  (for  that  would 
be  no  uncommon  occurrence),  but  that  this  happened  in  the 
absence  of  any  adequate  counteracting  cause.     Now,  in  the 
case  of  an  alleged  miracle  the  assertion  is  the  exact  oppo- 
site of  this.     It  is  that  the  effect  was  defeated,  not  in  the 
absence  but   in    consequence   of   a  counteracting   cause — 
namely,  a  direct  interposition  of  an  act  of  the  will  of  some 
being  who  has  power  over  nature,  and  in  particular  of  a 
being  whose  will,  having  originally  endowed  all  the  causes 
with  the  powers  by  which  they  produce  their  effects,  may 
well  be  supposed  able  to  counteract  them.     A  miracle,  as  was 
justly  remarked  by  Brown,  is  no  contradiction  to  the  law  of 
cause  and  effect ;  it  is  a  new  effect  supposed  to  be  produced 
by  the  introduction  of  a  ncAV  cause."     A  man  is,  accord- 
ingly, in  no  case  permitted  to  call  into  question  the  veracity 
of  his  senses ;  he  is  to  admit  what  he  sees  and  what  he  can- 
not but  see ;  and  when  the  phenomena  lie  beyond  the  range 
of  ordinary  experience,  it  is  the  dictate  of  philosophy  to 
seek  for  a  cause  which  is  adequate  to  produce  the  effect. 
This  is  what  the  laws  of  his  nature  require  him  to  do. 

It  is  obvious,  from  these  considerations,  that  if  sensible 
miracles  can  exist  they  can  be  known;  and  if  they  can  be 
known  by  those  under  the  cognizance  of  whose  senses  they 
immediately  fall,  they  can  be  proved  to  others  through  the 
medium  of  human  testimony.  The  celebrated  argument  of 
Mr.  Hume  against  this  proposition  proceeds  upon  a  false 
assumption  as  to  the  nature  of  the  law  by  which  testimony 
authenticates  a  flict.  He  forgets  that  the  credibility  of 
testimony  is  in  itself,  not  in  the  object  for  which  it  vouches ; 
it  must  be  believed  on  its  own  account,  and  not  that  of  the 
phenomena  asserted.  In  all  reasoning  upon  this  subject  the 
principle  of  cause  and  effect  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  process. 

the  miracle  because  we  know  that  there  is  a  cause  which  can  produce  it, 
but  we  know  that  there  is  such  a  cause  because  we  know  the  eflect  has 
been  produced. 


MIRACLES.  259 

A  witness,  strictly  speaking,  only  puts  us  in  possession  of 
the  convictions  of  his  own  mind  and  the  circumstances 
under  which  those  convictions  were  produced.  These  con- 
victions are  an  effect  for  which  the  constitution  of  our  nature 
prompts  us  to  seek  an  adequate  cause,  and  where  no  other 
satisfactory  solution  can  be  given  but  the  reality  of  the  facts 
to  which  the  witness  himself  ascribes  his  impressions,  then 
we  admit  the  existence  of  the  facts.  But  if  any  other  sat- 
isfactory cause  can  be  assigned,  the  testimony  should  not 
command  our  assent.  There  is  room  for  hesitation  and 
doubt.  If  a  man,  for  example,  afflicted  with  the  jaundice 
should  testify  that  the  Myalls  of  a  room  were  yellow,  we 
might  be  fully  persuaded  of  the  sincerity  of  his  own  belief, 
but  as  a  cause  in  the  diseased  condition  of  his  organs  could 
be  assigned  apart  from  the  reality  of  the  fact,  we  should  not 
feel  bound  to  receive  his  statement.  Two  questions,  conse- 
quently, must  always  arise  in  estimating  the  value  of  testi- 
mony. The  first  respects  the  sincerity  of  the  witnesses, — Do 
they  or  do  they  not  express  the  real  impressions  that  have 
been  made  upon  their  own  minds  ?  This  may  be  called  the 
fundamental  condition  of  testimony ;  without  it  the  state- 
ments of  a  witness  cannot  properly  be  called  testimony  at 
all.  The  second  respects  the  cause  of  these  convictions, — 
Are  there  any  known  principles  which  under  the  circum- 
stances in  which  the  witnesses  were  placed  can  account  for 
their  belief  without  an  admission  of  the  fact  to  which  they 
themselves  ascribe  if?  When  we  are  satisfied  upon  these 
two  points — that  the  witnesses  are  sincere,  and  that  no 
causes  apart  from  the  reality  of  the  facts  can  be  assigned  in 
the  case,  then  the  testimony  is  entitled  to  be  received  with- 
out hesitation.  The  presumption  is  always  in  favour  of 
the  cause  actually  assigned  until  the  contrary  can  be  estab- 
lished. If  this  be  the  law  of  testimony,  it  is  evident  that 
the  intrinsic  probability  of  phenomena  does  not  directly 
affect  their  credibility.  What  is  inherently  probable  may  be 
proved  upon  slighter  testimony  than  what  is  antecedently 
unlikely;  not  that  additional  credibility  is  imparted  to  the 


260  MIRACLES. 

testimony,  but  additional  credibility  is  imparted  to  the  phe- 
nomena, there  being  two  separate  and  independent  sources 
of  proof.  The  testimony  is  still  credible  only  upon  its  own 
grounds.  In  the  case,  accordingly,  of  sensible  miracles,  in 
which  the  witnesses  give  unimpeachable  proofs  of  the  sin- 
cerity of  their  own  belief,  it  is  incumbent  upon  the  skeptic 
to  show  how  this  belief  was  produced  under  the  circum- 
stances in  which  the  witnesses  were  placed  before  he  is  at 
liberty  to  set  aside  the  facts.  He  must  show  how  the  wit- 
nesses came  to  believe  so  and  so  if  there  were  no  founda- 
tion in  reality.  The  testimony  must  be  accounted  for  and 
explained,  or  the  miracle  must  be  admitted  through  the 
operation  of  the  same  law  which  authenticates  testimony  in 
every  other  case.  It  is  an  idle  evasion  to  say  that  men  some- 
times lie.  No  doubt  there  are  many  lies  and  many  liars  in 
the  world ;  but  we  are  not  speaking  of  a  case  in  which  men 
fabricate  a  story,  giving  utterance  to  statements  which  they 
do  not  themselves  believe.  That  is  not  properly  a  case  of 
testimony.  We  are  speaking  of  instances  in  which  the 
witness  honestly  believes  what  he  says,  and  surely  there  are 
criteria  by  which  sincerity  can  be  satisfactorily  established. 
With  respect  to  such  instances,  we  affirm  that  there  can  be 
but  two  suppositions — either  the  witness  was  deceived,  or 
the  facts  were  real.  The  question  of  the  credibility  of  the 
testimony  turns  upon  the  likelihood  of  delusion  in  the  case ; 
and  where  it  is  one  in  which  the  delusion  cannot  be  affirmed 
without  affirming  at  the  same  time  the  mendacity  of  the 
senses,  the  miracle  is  proved,  or  no  such  thing  as  extrinsic 
proof  exists  on  the  face  of  the  earth. 

But  it  may  be  contended  that  although  testimony  has  its 
own  laws,  and  must  be  judged  of  by  them,  yet  in  the  case 
of  miracles  there  is  a  contest  of  opposite  probabilities — the 
extrinsic  arising  from  testimony  in  their  favour,  and  the 
intrinsic  arising  from  analogy  against  them;  and  that  our 
belief  should  be  determined  by  the  preponderating  evidence, 
which  must  always  be  the  intrinsic,  in  consequence  of  \i^ 
concurrence  with  general  experience.     The  fallacy  here  coi.- 


MIRACLES.  261 

sists  ill  siipjjosing  that  these  two  probabilities  are  directed 
to  the  same  point.  The  truth  is,  the  interiial  probability 
amounts  only  to  this,  that  the  same  antecedents  under  the 
conditions  indispensable  to  their  operation  will  produce  the 
same  effects  ;  the  external  is,  that  in  the  given  case  the  neces- 
sary conditions  were  not  fulfilled.  There  is,  consequently, 
no  collision,  and  the  law  of  testimony  is  left  in  undisturbed 
operation.  It  is  clear  that  Mr.  Hume  would  never  have 
thought  of  constructing  his  celebrated  argument  against  the 
credibility  of  miracles  if  he  had  not  previously  believed  that 
miracles  were  phenomena  which  could  never  authenticate 
themselves — that  they  were  in  their  own  nature  incapable  of 
being  known.  This  is  the  conclusion  which  he  really  aimed 
to  establish  under  the  disguise  of  his  deceitful  ratiocinations, 
the  conclusion  which  legitimately  flows  from  his  premises, 
and  a  consistent  element  of  that  general  system  of  skepti- 
cism which  he  undertook  to  rear  by  setting  our  faculties  at 
war  with  each  other,  and  making  the  data  of  consciousness 
contradictory  either  in  themselves  or  their  logical  results. 
If  he  had  believed  miracles  to  be  cognizable,  he  would  per- 
haps have  had  no  hesitation  in  admitting  that  what  a  man 
would  be  authorized  to  receive  upon  the  testimony  of  his 
own  senses  he  would  be  equally  authorized  to  receive  upon 
the  testimony  of  the  senses  of  other  men.  AYhat  is  cogni- 
zable by  others — all  having  the  same  essential  constitution — 
is  cognizable  by  us  through  them.  We  see  with  their  eyes 
and  hear  with  their  ears.  The  only  case  in  which  the 
intrinsic  and  extrinsic  probabilities  come  into  direct  collis- 
ion is  that  in  which  the  alleged  fact  involves  a  contradictif)n, 
and  is  therefore  impossible.  In  all  other  cases  testimony 
simply  gives  us  a  new  effect. 

The  skepticism  of  Mr.  Hume  and  the  disciples  of  the 
same  school,  it  is  almost  needless  to  observe,  is  in  fatal  con- 
tradiction to  the  whole  genius  and  spirit  of  the  inductive 
])hilosophy.  Observers,  not  masters,  interpreters,  not  legis- 
lators, of  nature,  we  are  to  employ  our  faculties,  and  im- 
plicitly receive  whatever  in  their  sound  and  healthful  con- 


262  MIRACLES. 

dition  they  report  to  be  true.  "We  are  not  to  make  phe- 
nomena, but  to  study  those  which  God  has  submitted  to 
our  consciousness.  If  antecedent  presumptions  should  be 
allowed  to  prevail,  the  extraordinary  as  contradistinguished 
from  the  facts  of  every-day  life,  the  new,  the  strange,  the 
uncommon,  the  mirabile,  any  more  than  the  miraculum,  never 
could  be  established.  To  make  a  limited  and  uniform 
experience  the  measure  of  existence  is  to  deny  that  expe- 
rience itself  is  progressive,  and  to  reduce  all  ages  and  geue- 
tions  to  a  heartless  stagnation  of  science.  The  spirit  of  mod- 
ern philosophy  revolts  against  this  bondage.  It  has  long 
since  ceased  to  wonder,  long  since  learned  to  recognize  every- 
thing as  credible  which  is  not  impossible ;  it  explores  every 
region  of  nature,  every  department  of  existence ;  its  excur- 
sions are  for  facts ;  it  asks  for  nothing  but  a  sufficient  extrin- 
sic probability,  and  when  this  is  furnished  it  proceeds  with 
its  great  work  of  digesting  the  facts  into  order,  tracing  out 
their  correspondences  and  resemblances,  referring  them  to 
general  laws,  and  giving  them  their  place  in  the  ever-widen- 
ing circle  of  science.  AVhen  they  are  stubborn  and  intract- 
able, standing  out  in  insulation  and  independence,  and  refus- 
ing to  be  marshalled  into  systems,  they  are  still  retained  as 
phenomena  yet  to  be  accounted  for,  and  salutary  mementos 
of  human  ignorance.  But  no  man  of  science  in  the  present 
day  would  ever  think  of  rejecting  a  fact  because  it  was 
strange  or  unaccountable.  The  principle  is  universally  rec- 
ognized that  there  are  more  things  in  heaven  and  eartli  than 
are  dreamed  of  in  our  philosophy.  If  Hume's  laws  were  the 
laws  of  philosophy,  where  would  have  been  the  sciences  of 
chemistry,  galvanism,  electricity,  geology  and  magnetism  ? 
With  what  face  could  the  palaeontologist  come  out  with  his 
startling  disclosures  of  the  memorials  of  extinct  generations 
and  perished  races  of  animals?  What  would  be  said  of 
aerial  iron  and  stones?  and  where  would  have  been  the 
sublimest  of  all  theories,  the  Cojiernican  theory  of  the 
heavens?  The  philosopher  is  one  who  regards  everything, 
or  nothing,  as  a  wonder. 


MIRACLES.  263 

The  remarks  of  Butler  are  not  only  philosophically  just, 
but  worthy  of  Bacon  himself,  when  he  asserts  that  miracles 
must  not  be  compared  to  common  natural  events,  or  to 
events  which,  though  uncommon,  are  similar  to  what  we 
daily  experience,  but  to  the  extraordinary  phenomena  of 
nature.  It  is  nothing  worth  to  say  that  these  extraordinary 
phenomena  may  be  subsequently  explained  in  the  way  in 
which  physical  philosophers  account  for  events.  That  was 
not  known  when  they  were  first  authenticated  to  conscious- 
ness. They  had  to  be  believed  before  they  could  be  ex- 
plained. Miracles,  too,  when  we  reach  a  higher  pinnacle 
of  knowledge,  may  connect  themselves  as  clearly  with  the 
general  scheme  of  God  as  the  wonders  of  physics.  The 
conclusion,  then,  would  seem  to  be  established  that  as  the 
will  of  God  is  the  sole  measure  of  existence,  so  the  power 
of  God  or  the  possibility  of  the  event  is  the  sole  limit  to 
the  credibility  of  testimony. 

The  only  question,  therefore,  which  remains  to  be  dis- 
cussed is,  whether  miracles  are  possible.  This  is  simply 
the  question  concerning  the  existence  of  a  personal  God. 
If  there  is  a  Being  of  intelligence  and  will  who  created 
and  governs  the  world,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
same  power  which  at  first  ordained  can  subsequently  con- 
trol the  laws  of  nature,  and  produce  eifects  independently 
of,  as  easily  as  in  concurrence  with,  the  secondary  causes 
which  He  has  appointed.  Accordingly,  none  will  be  found 
to  deny  the  physical  possibility  of  miracles  but  those  who 
deny  a  great  First  Cause,  or  those  who  resolve  the  relations 
of  the  finite  and  the  infinite  into  a  principle  of  immanence 
or  identity,  totally  destructive  of  all  freedom  and  intelli- 
gence, and  of  all  essential  separateness  of  being  on  the 
part  of  what  they  profess  to  call  God.  The  Avorshippcrs 
of  the  supremacy  of  law,  on  the  one  hand,  who  see  nothing 
in  nature  but  a  blind  succession  of  events,  and  the  philos- 
ophers of  the  imagined  absolute  upon  the  other,  who  have 
ascended  to  the  fountain  of  universal  being,  and  traced  the 
process  by  Mhieh  the  conditioned  has  been  propagated  and 


264  MIRACLES. 

derived,  unite  in  the  warfare  against  miracles,  because,  in 
either  case,  the  miracle  is  fatal  to  their  pretensions.  They 
cannot  reconcile  it  with  the  stern  necessity  and  rigid  con- 
tinuity which  their  speculations  imperatively  demand. 
With  the  avowed  Atheist  it  is  useless  to  contend.  It  is 
enough  that  he  gets  quit  of  miracles  only  by  getting  quit 
of  God.  And  if  he  should  be  induced  to  admit  their  phe- 
nomenal reality,  he  could  as  easily  resort  to  subterfuges  and 
pretexts  to  explain  them  away  as  he  can  dispense  with 
intelligence  and  wisdom  in  accounting  for  the  arrangement 
and  order  of  the  universe.  To  him  to  whom  the  glorious 
wonders  of  creation  and  providence,  renewed  with  every 
morning  sun,  to  whom  what  Philo  calls  "the  truly  great — 
the  production  of  the  heavens,  the  chorus  of  the  fixed  and 
erratic  stars,  the  enkindling  of  the  solar  and  lunar  lights,  the 
foundation  of  the  earth,  the  outpouring  of  the  ocean,  the 
course  of  rivers  and  flowing  of  perennial  fountains,  the 
change  of  revolving  seasons,  and  ten  thousand  wonders 
more,"  reveal  nothing  of  design,  to  him  the  most  astonish- 
ing exhibitions  of  supernatural  power  could  appear  as 
nothing  but  fantastic  freaks.  As,  according  to  Lord  Bacon, 
God  never  wrought  a  miracle  to  convince  an  Atheist,  it 
would  be  frivolous  to  vindicate  to  him  the  possibility  of 
such  phenomena,  or  to  take  into  serious  account  principles 
which  he  holds  only  by  the  abnegation  of  his  nature.  If 
there  be  no  God,  we  care  very  little  whether  there  are  mir- 
acles or  not. 

But  there  is  a  class  of  philosophers  whom  unlettered 
Christians  are  very  apt  to  regard  as  closely  approximating 
to  Atheists,  but  who  themselves  profess  to  be  very  zealous 
for  the  Divine  existence  and  perfections,  whose  poison  is  as 
insinuating  as  it  is  dangerous,  and  whose  speculations  have 
mainly  contributed  to  undermine  the  credibility  of  the 
miracle.  For  the  purpose  which  we  have  in  view  they 
may  all  be  reckoned  as  Pantheists.  It  is  obvious  that  those 
who,  with  Spinoza,  start  out  from  the  notion  of  substance, 
and  by  logical  deduction  from  the  elements  contained  in  it 


MIRACLES.  265 

reduce  the  finite  to  a  modification  of  the  infinite,  come  to 
the  same  ultimate  conckision  with  those  who  start  out  from 
the  analysis  of  consciousness,  and  by  the  phenomena  of 
human  knowledo;e  are  led  to  confound  thought  and  exist- 
ence, and  identify  the  subject  and  the  object.  In  either 
case,  essential  being  is  one,  and  the  differences  of  things 
are  only  varieties  in  the  modes  of  manifestation.  In  the 
eclectic  system  of  Cousin  both  processes  are  combined :  the 
infinite  is  the  substance;  the  finite,  the  attributes  or  affec- 
tions ;  the  infinite  is  the  real,  the  permanent,  the  unchanging; 
the  finite  is  the  phenomenal,  the  fluctuating,  the  variable ; 
the  infinite  is  the  cause ;  the  finite  the  effect.  The  one 
is  the  complement  of  the  other;  neither  can  exist,  or  be 
known,  apart. 

The  fundamental  error  of  Pantheism  is,  that  it  overlooks 
the  fact  of  creation.  Let  this  be  denied,  and  we  see  no 
way  of  avoiding  the  philosophy  of  Spinoza  or  of  Hegel. 
We  must  seek  a  logical  and  a  necessary  connection  between 
the  finite  and  the  infinite.  It  must  be  that  of  a  substance 
with  its  accidents,  or  a  mind  with  its  thoughts,  or  a  blind 
cause  with  its  effects.  Deny  creation,  and  you  can  conceive 
of  no  higher  existence  of  the  world  than  as  a  thought  of 
the  Eternal  Mind — an  object  to  the  knowledge  of  God; 
and  contemplated  in  this  light  it  has  no  real  being — it  is 
only  God  himself;  it  is  only  a  subjective  phenomenon  of 
the  Divine  nature.  Postulate  creation,  and  these  eternal 
thoughts,  or,  as  Plato  would  call  them,  these  eternal  ideas, 
become  realized  in  finite  substances,  which  have  a  being, 
dependent  to  be  sure,  but  still  a  being  of  their  own.  They 
are  no  longer  the  consciousness  of  God  himself.  But  crea- 
tion, as  distinct  from  emanation  or  development,  necessarily 
implies  the  voluntary  exercise  of  power.  It  is  a  thing 
which  might  or  nn'ght  not  be.  It  is  in  no  sense  necessary. 
Hence  the  relation  of  the  finite  to  the  infinite,  upon  this 
hypothesis,  becomes  purely  contingent.  It  is  a  relation  in- 
stituted by  will  and  de[)endent  ui)on  \\ill.  In  other  words, 
we  have   no   longer  a   necessary,  but  a  free,  cause.     This 


266  MIRACLES. 

aspect  of  the  case  changes  the  whole  problem  of  philosophy, 
and  gives  a  new  direction  to  the  current  of  speculation.  It 
must  now  flow  in  the  channels  of  induction  and  not  of  de- 
duction. When  we  speak  of  creation  as  contingent,  we  do 
not  mean  to  represent  it  as  arbitrary.  The  will  of  God,  so 
far  from  being  analogous  to  caprice,  can  never  be  divorced 
from  His  wisdom  and  goodness.  He  must  always  act  like 
Himself;  and  if  He  create  a  w^orld  or  a  universe,  it  must 
be  to  answ^er  an  end  worthy  of  His  exalted  perfections. 
But  while  nothing  can  be  conceived  as  done  by  Him  un- 
worthy of  His  Name,  no  knowledge  of  His  attributes  can 
ever  conduct  us,  a  'priori,  to  the  nature  of  the  particular 
concrete  objects  to  which  He  might  determine  to  give  being. 
It  would  enable  us  to  speak  of  their  general  character  and 
aim,  but  it  would  throw  no  light-  upon  their  specific  and 
individual  differences.  No  man  knows  what  kind  of  inhab- 
itants there  are  in  the  moon,  or  whether  there  are  any. 
He  cannot  deduce  from  the  attributes  of  God  any  firm  solu- 
tion of  the  problem ;  and  yet  he  is  persuaded  that,  however 
it  may  be  solved,  these  attributes  are  illustrated.  It  is  one 
thing  to  be  able  to  say,  that  whatever  God  does  must  be 
wise  and  good;  it  is  quite  a  different  thing  to  be  able  to  spe- 
cify what  those  wise  and  good  things  may  be.  Speculation, 
therefore,  must  abandon  the  law  of  rigid  deduction  when 
the  starting-point  is  a  free,  voluntary,  intelligent  cause — a 
Person.  The  question  then  becomes  one  concerning  the 
free  determinations  of  a  will  regulated  by  wisdom  and 
goodness.  It  is  a  question  concerning  design.  Necessity 
obtains  only  in  relation  to  its  general  character ;  all  else  is 
contingent.  Creation  gives  us  at  once  a  personal  God  and 
final  causes.  It  gives  us  real  existences  apart  from  God, 
which  are  precisely  what  He  chose  to  make  them;  and 
final  causes  give  us  a  plan  which  we  have  no  means  of 
knowing  in  its  special  adaptations  and  general ,  order,  ex- 
cept as  it  is  manifested  in  the  course  of  experience  or  super- 
naturally  revealed.  It  is  at  this  fact  of  creation  that  the 
pantheistic   philosophy    has   stumbled;    and   in   stumbling 


MIRACLES.  267 

here  it  has  as  thoroughly  exploded  design  as  it  has  miracles. 
The  argument  is  as  complete  in  the  one  case  as  the  other ; 
and  we  would  impress  it  upon  those  who  permit  themselves 
to  be  entangled  in  these  cobwebs  of  transcendental  meta- 
physics that  while  they  are  revolting  from  the  supernatural 
on  the  ground  that  it  contradicts  their  philosophy,  and 
pronouncing  all  miracles  to  be  absolutely  impossible,  they 
are,  at  the  same  time,  revolting  from  all  manifestations  of 
intelligence,  and  pronouncing  their  own  most  familiar  con- 
sciousness to  be  also  an  impossibility. 

Pantheism,  in  its  common  illustrations  of  the  universe, 
has  more  of  poetry  than  of  truth.  It  represents  it  as  an 
organic  whole,  whose  unity  is  preserved  by  a  regular  series 
of  separate  developments,  concurring  in  a  common  result. 
This  seems  to  be  the  notion,  if  he  had  any,  which  Strauss 
intended  to  convey  when  he  said :  "  Since  our  idea  of  God 
requires  an  immediate,  and  our  idea  of  the  world  a  mediate, 
Divine  operation,  and  since  the  idea  of  combination  of  the 
two  species  of  action  is  inadmissible,  nothing  remains  for 
us  but  to  regard  them  both  as  so  permanently  and  immov- 
ably united  that  the  operation  of  God  on  the  world  con- 
tinues for  ever  and  everywhere  twofold,  both  immediate 
and  mediate;  which  comes  just  to  this,  that  it  is  neither  of 
the  two,  or  this  distinction  loses  its  value."  The  iniiverse, 
in  conformity  with  what  we  take  to  be  the  meaning  of  this 
passage,  is  not  unfrequently  described  as  a  living  organism, 
the  properties  of  matter  being  strictly  analogous  to  vital 
forces,  the  development  of  Avhich  is  like  the  growth  of  an 
animal  body.  This  view,  we  are  sorry  to  say,  disfigures 
that  masterly  work,  the  Cosmos  of  Humboldt.  The  de- 
sign of  his  introductory  remarks  is  "  not  solely  to  draw 
attention  to  the  importance  and  greatness  of  the  physical 
history  of  the  universe — for  in  the  present  day  these  are 
too  well  understood  to  be  contested — but  likewise  to  prove 
how,  without  detriment  to  the  stability  of  special  studies, 
we  may  be  enabled  to  generalize  our  ideas  by  concentrating 
them    in   one  common  focus,  and  thus  arrive  at  a  p(»int  of 


268  MIRACLES.  , 

view  from  which  all  the  organisms  and  forces  of  nature 
may  be  seen  as  one  living,  active  whole,  animated  by  one 
sole  impulse." 

Having  sufficiently  indicated  the  point  at  which  Pan- 
theism diverges  from  the  truth,  and  exposed  the  fallacy  of 
its  a  jirlori  demonstration  of  the  impossibility  of  miracles, 
we  cannot  let  it  pass  without  rebuking  the  presumption  of 
its  spirit.  In  nothing  is  it  more  distinguished  from  the 
humility  of  true  science  than  in  the  magnificence  of  its 
pretensions.  When  we  consider  the  immensity  of  the 
universe,  and  the  magnitude  and  extent  of  that  government, 
physical  and  moral,  which  God  has  been  conducting  from 
the  beginning  over  all  His  creatures,  whether  material  or 
intelligent,  the  conclusion  forces  itself  upon  us  that  the 
plan  of  the  universe  is  a  point  upon  which  we  have  not  the 
faculties  to  dogmatize.  True  science,  accordingly,  aspiring 
only  to  a  relative  knowledge  of  existence,  instead  of  futile 
and  abortive  attempts  to  construct  a  universe  or  to  fix  the 
TO  Tcav  as  a  positive  element  of  consciousness,  takes  its 
stand,  in  conformity  with  the  sublime  maxim  of  Bacon,  as 
the  minister,  not  the  master — the  interpreter,  not  the  legis- 
lator, of  nature.  Professing  its  incompetence  to  pronounce 
beforehand  what  kinds  of  creatures  the  Almighty  should 
have  made,  and  Avhat  kinds  of  laws  the  Almighty  should 
have  established,  and  what  kinds  of  agency  He  Himself 
should  continue  to  put  forth,  it  is  content  to  study  the  phe- 
nomena presented  to  it,  in  order  to  discover  what  God  has 
wrought.  Without  presuming  to  determine  what  must  be, 
it  humbly  and  patiently  inquires  what  is.  The  spirit  of 
true  philosophy  is  much  more  a  confession  of  ignorance 
than  a  boast  of  knowledge.  Newton  exhibited  it  when, 
after  all  his  splendid  discoveries,  he  compared  himself  to  a 
child  who  had  gathered  up  a  few  pebbles  upon  the  seashore, 
while  the  great  ocean  of  truth  lay  undiscovered  before  liim. 
La  Place  exhibited  it  when  he  spoke  of  the  immensity  of 
nature  and  human  science  as  but  a  point;  and  Butler  was  a 
living  example  of  it  in  the  uniform  modesty  of  his  coufes- 


MIRACLES.  269 

slons  and  tlie  caution  and  meekness  of  liis  researches.  Shall 
man,  the  creature  of  yesterday,  who  calls  corruption  his 
Hither  and  the  worm  his  mother  and  his  sister,  who  at  best 
can  only  touch,  in  his  widest  excursions,  the  hem  of  .Jeho- 
vah's garment — shall  man  undertake  to  counsel  the  Holy 
One  as  to  the  plan  He  shall  pursue?  Is  it  not  intolerable 
arrogance  in  a  creature  whose  senses  are  restricted  to  a 
point,  who  is  confessedly  incompetent  to  declare  what  ends 
it  may  be  the  design  of  Deity  to  accomplish  in  creation  and 
providence,  who  cannot  explain  to  us  why  the  world  has 
sprung  into  being  at  all,  Avith  its  rich  variety  of  scenery, 
vegetation  and  life,  who  is  unable  to  tell  the  meaning  of 
this  little  scene  in  the  midst  of  which  he  is  placed, — is  it 
not  iritolerable  arrogance  in  him  to  talk  of  comprehending 
the  height  and  depth  and  length  and  breadth  of  that  eter- 
nal purpose  which  began  to  be  unfolded  when  creation 
was  evoked  from  emptiness,  and  the  silence  and  solitude  of 
vacancy  Avere  broken  by  the  songs  of  angels  bursting  into 
light,  and  which  shall  go  on  unfolding,  in  larger  and  fuller 
proportions,  through  the  boundless  cycles  of  eternity?  Our 
true  position  is  in  the  dust.  We  are  of  yesterday,  and  know 
nothing.  This  plan  of  God! — it  is  high  as  heaven ;  what 
can  we  do  ? — deeper  than  hell ;  what  can  we  know  ?  Our 
ignorance  in  regard  to  it  is  a  full  and  sufficient  answer  to 
the  folly  and  presumption  of  those  who  confidently  assert 
that  its  order  would  be  broken  and  its  unity  disturbed  by 
the  direct  interposition  of  Omnipotence.  Who  told  these 
philosophers  that  the  plan  itself  does  not  contemplate  inter- 
ventions of  the  kind?  Who  has  assured  them  that  He 
who  knew  the  end  from  the  beginning  has  not  projected 
the  scheme  of  His  government  upon  a  scale  which  included 
the  occasional  exhibition  of  Himself  in  the  direct  exercises 
of  power?  Who  has  taught  them  that  miracles  are  an 
invasion,  instead  of  an  integral  portion,  of  the  Divine  ad- 
ministration ?  It  is  frivolous  to  answer  objections  which 
proceed  upon  the  infinitely  absurd  supposition  that  we  know 
the  whole  of  the  case. 


270  MIRACLES. 

But  tliough  the  idea  of  a  universe  ap  a  living,  self- 
developing  organism  cannot  be  sustained,  though  the  unity 
of  nature  is  nothing  but  the  harmony  of  Divine  operations, 
and  creation  and  providence  only  expressions  of  the  Divine 
decrees,  though  the  whole  case  is  one  which  confessedly 
transcends  our  faculties,  yet  something  we  can  know,  and 
that  something  creates  a  positive  presumption  in  favour  of 
miracles.  We  know  that  God  has  erected  a  moral  govern- 
ment over  men,  and  that  this  sublunary  state,  whatever 
other  ends  it  may  be  designed  to  accomplish,  is  a  theatre 
for  human  education  and  improvement.  We  cannot  resist 
the  impression  that  the  earth  was  made  for  man,  and  not 
man  for  the  earth.  He  is  master  here  below.  This  earth 
is  a  school  in  Avliich  God  is  training  him  for  a  higher  and 
nobler  state.  If  the  end,  consequently,  of  the  present  con- 
stitution and  course  of  nature  can  be  helped  forward  by 
occasional  interpositions  of  the  Deity  in  forms  and  circum- 
stances which  compel  us  to  recognize  His  hand,  the  order 
of  the  world  is  preserved  and  not  broken.  AVhen  the  Pan- 
theist "  charges  the  miracle  with  resting  on  a  false  assump- 
tion of  the  position  which  man  occupies  in  the  universe,  as 
flattering  the  notion  that  nature  is  to  serve  him,  he  not  to 
bow  to  nature,  it  is  most  true  that  it  does  rest  on  this  as- 
sumption. But  this  is  only  a  charge  which  would  tell 
against  it,  supposing  that  true  which,  so  far  from  being 
truth,  is  indeed  his  first  great  falsehood  of  all — namely,  the 
substitution  of  a  God  of  nature  in  the  place  of  a  God  of 
men."  ^  Admit  the  supremacy  of  God's  moral  government, 
and  there  is  nothing  which  commends  itself  more  strongly 
to  the  natural  expectations  of  men  than  that  He  sliould 
teach  His  creatures  what  was  necessary  to  their  happiness 
according  to  the  exigencies  of  their  case.  Miraculous  inter- 
ventions have,  accordingly,  been  a  part  of  the  creed  of 
humanity  from  the  Fall  to  the  present  hour. 

The  argument  here  briefly  enunciated  requires  to  be  more 
distinctly  considered.  There  is  no  doubt  that,  after  all,  the 
^  Trench's  Notes  on  tlie  Miracles,  p.  60. 


^riRACLES.  271 

strongest  presumption  Avhich  is  commonly  imagined  to  exist 
against  the  miracle  arises  from  the  impression  that  it  is  an 
interference  with  the  reign  of  order  and  of  law.  It  is 
regarded  as  an  arbitrary  infraction  of  the  course  of  nature, 
or  a  M-ilful  deviation  from  the  general  plan  of  God.  It  is 
treated  as  an  aimless  prodigy.  If  this  view  were  correct  it 
would  be  fatal  to  its  claims.  The  moral  argument  would 
be  so  overwhelming  that  Ave  should  be  very  reluctant  to 
admit  any  testimony  in  its  favour.  It  is  to  obviate  this 
prejudice  that  so  many  attempts  have  been  made,  like  the 
one  already  noticed  in  Trench  and  rebuked  by  Dr.  Ward- 
law,  to  transfer  the  miracle  to  a  higher  sphere  of  nature. 
Nitzsch  very  distinctly  states  the  difficulty,  and  resolves  it 
in  the  same  way  that  Trench  has  done.  "  If  a  miracle," 
says  he,  "  were  simply  an  event  opposed  to  nature's  laAvs, 
a  something  unnatural  and  incomprehensible,  and  if  the 
human  understanding  together  with  entire  nature  expe- 
rienced through  its  agency  merely  a  subversive  shock,  then 
would  the  defence  of  Christianity — a  religion  established 
by  means  of  a  grand  system  of  miracles — have  to  contend 
against  insurmountable  difficulties.  But  the  miracles  of 
revelation,  with  all  the  objective  supernaturalness  essentially 
belonging  to  them,  are  in  truth  somewhat  accordant  with 
natural  laws,  partly  in  reference  to  a  higher  order  of  cir- 
cumstances to  which  the  miracles  relate,  and  which  order 
also  is  a  world,  a  nature  of  its  own  kind,  and  operates  upon 
the  lower  order  of  things  according  to  its  mode ;  partly  in 
regard  to  the  analogy  with  common  nature  which  miracles 
in  some  way  or  other  retain ;  and,  finally,  on  account  of 
their  teleological  perfection."  ^ 

The  same  difficulty  occurs  in  Thomas  Aquinas,-  and  his 

1  Christian  Doctrine,  p.  83. 

*  "A  qualibet  causa  derivatur  aliquis  ordo  in  suos  effectus,  cum  qufplibet 
causa  habeatrationemprincipii;  et  ideo  secundum  multiplicationeni  causa- 
rum  multiplicantur  et  ordines,  quorum  unus  continetur  sub  altcro,  sicut  et 
causa  continetur  sub  causa.  Unde  causa  superior  jion  continetur  sub 
ordine  causae  inferioris,  scd  e  converso;  cujus  exemplum  apparet  in  rebus 
humanis :  nam  ex  patrefamilias  dependet  ordo  domus,  qui  continetur  sub 


272  MIRACLES. 

answer  strikes  us  as  far  more  direct  and  conclusive  tlian  any 
ingenious  attempts  to  divest  the  miracle  of  its  distinctive 
and  essential  character  as  a  supernatural  phenomenon.  The 
answer  amounts  substantially  to  this :  the  miracle  is  against 
the  order  of  nature,  but  not  against  the  end  of  nature.  It 
is  a  different  way  of  accomplishing  the  same  ultimate  design. 
There  is  moral  harmony,  notwithstanding  phenomenal  con- 
tradiction. As  one  law  of  nature  holds  another  in  check, 
as  one  sphere  of  nature  is  superior  to  another,  and  the  superior 
rules  and  controls  the  lower,  and  yet  as  all  these  collisions 
and  conflicts  conduce  to  the  great  purjDose  of  God  in  estab- 
lishing these  laws  and  systems,  so  He  who  is  supreme 
above  them  all  may  hold  them  all  in  check  when  the  design 
of  all  can  be  more  effectually  promoted  by  such  an  inter- 
ference. There  is  no  more  confusion  or  jar  in  this  omnipo- 
tent interposition  of  His  own  will  in  contradiction  to  nature 
than  when  one  part  of  nature  thwarts  and  opposes  another. 
In  the  sense,  then,  of  disorder  as  being  a  turning  aside  from 
the  ultimate  relation  of  things  to  the  great  First  Cause,  the 
miracle  is  not  maintained.  It  is  the  highest  order,  the  order 
of  ethical  harmony.  It  introduces  no  confusion  in  the  uni- 
verse. It  rather  lubricates  the  wheels  of  nature,  and  gives 
it  a  deeper  significance.  It  breaks  the  apathy  into  which 
unbroken  uniformity  would  otherwise  lull  the  soul.  The 
introduction  of  miracles  into  the  moral  system  of  the  world 
is  analogous  in  its  effects  to  the  introduction  of  chance  upon 

ordine  civitatis,  qui  procedit  a  civitatis  rectore,  cum  et  hie  contineatur  sub 
ordine  regis,  a  quo  totum  regnum  ordinatur.  Si  ergo  ordo  rerum  con- 
Bideretur,  prout  dependet  a  prima  causa,  sic  contra  rerum  ordinem  Deus 
facere  non  potest;  si  enim  sic  faceret,  faceret  contra  suam  prrescientiam, 
aut  voluntatem,  aut  bonitatem.  Si  vero  consideretur  rerum  ordo,  j^ront 
dependet  a  qualibet  secundarum  causarum,  sic  Deus  potest  facere  prseter 
ordinem  rerum :  quia  ordini  secundarum  causarum  ipse  non  est  subjec- 
tus ;  sed  talis  ordo  ei  subjicitur,  quasi  ab  eo  procedens,  non  per  necessita- 
tem  naturre,  sed  per  arbitrium  voluntatis.  Potuisset  enim  et  alium  ordi- 
nem rerum  instituere;  unde  et  potest  prseter  hunc  ordinem  institutum 
agere,  cum  voluerit ;  puta,  agendo  efiectus  secundarum  causarum  sine  ipsis, 
vel  producendo  aliquos  effectus,  ad  quos  causae  secundse  non  se  exten- 
dunt."     Summa  1,  Quest,  cv.  Art.  vi. 


MIRACLES.  273 

SO  large  a  scale.  Tlie  fortuities  of  nature  keep  us  constantly 
reminded  of  God,  and  impress  us  with  an  habitual  sense  of 
dependence.  We  are  compelled  to  recognize  something 
more  than  law.  The  miracle,  in  the  same  way,  brings  God 
distinctly  before  us,  and  has  a-  direct  tendency  to  promote 
the  great  moral  ends  for  which  the  sun  shines,  the  rains 
descend,  the  grass  grows,  and  all  nature  moves  in  her  steady 
and  majestic  course.  Miracles  and  nature  join  in  the  grand 
chorus  to  the  supremacy  and  glory  of  God. 

The  true  point  of  view,  consequently,  in  which  the  mira- 
cle is  to  be  considered  is  in  its  ethical  relations.  It  is  not 
to  be  tried  by  physical,  but  by  moral,  probabilities;  and  if  it 
can  contribute  to  the  furtherance  of  the  ends  for  which  man 
was  made  and  nature  ordained,  if  it  can  make  nature  her- 
self more  eifective,  we  have  the  same  reason  to  admit  it  as 
to  admit  any  other  arrangement  of  benevolence  and  wisdom. 
AVe  degrade  ourselves  and  we  degrade  our  Creator  when  we 
make  the  physical  supreme,  when  we  make  the  dead  uni- 
formity of  matter  more  important  than  the  life  and  health 
and  vigour  of  the  soul.  This  subject  is  very  ably  discussed 
by  Dr.  Wardlaw,  and  we  close  our  argument  upon  it  by  a 
pregnant  extract : 

"  Let  me  illustrate  my  meaning  by  a  simple  comparison — a  compari- 
son taken  from  what  is  human,  but  in  the  principle  of  it  bearing  with 
infinitely  greater  force  on  our  conclusion  when  transferred  to  what  is 
Divine.  A  mechanician,  let  me  suppose,  has  devised  and  completed 
a  machine.  Its  structure  in  each  of  its  parts,  and  in  its  entire  com- 
plexity, is  as  perfect  as  human  ingenuity  and  long-practised  skill  are 
capable  of  making  it.  All  its  movements  are  beautifully  uniform. 
Its  adaptation  for  its  intended  purpose  is  exquisite.  So  far  as  that 
purpose  is  concerned  it  cannot  be  improved.  It  works  to  admiration. 
In  such  a  case  the  probability  certainly  is  that  the  maker  will  not  think 
of  introducing  any  change,  seeing  in  a  structure  thus  faultless  every 
alteration  would  be  for  the  worse.  The  machine,  therefore,  would  be 
kept  going  on  as  at  the  first,  to  the  continued  satisfaction  of  the  inventor 
and  artificer,  and  the  delight  and  wonder  of  all  who  have  the  oi)i)or- 
tunity  of  examining  it.  Thus  far  all  is  clear.  But  sujipose  now  fur- 
ther that  circumstances  .-should  occur  in  which  the  continuance  of  the 
regular  movements  of  the  ^aid  machine  exposed  a  human  life  to  dan- 
VoL.  III.— 18 


274  MIRACLES. 

ger,  and  that  by  simply  stopping  or  changing  one  of  those  movements 
for  but  a  few  seconds  that  Hfe  could  be  saved,  and  yet  more,  that  it  is 
in  the  power  of  the  maker  and  owner  with  perfect  ease  to  stop  or  to 
change  that  movement,  and  to  do  so  without  in  the  slightest  degree 
injuring  his  machine,  or  even  at  all  interfering  with  and  impeding  the 
chief  purpose  of  its  constructionj — if  in  these  circumstances  we  knew 
the  maker  and  owner  to  be  a  man  of  unusual  sensibility  and  benevo- 
lence, or  even  of  no  more  than  ordinary  humanity,  should  we  not  feel 
it  by  far  too  feeble  an  expression  to  say  that  it  was  UMy  he  would 
stop  or  change  the  movement? — should  we  not  think  we  insulted  him- 
self and  maligned  his  character  if  we  pronounced  his  doing  so  less 
than  certain  f  If,  merely  because  he  was  enamoured  of  the  beauty 
and  regularity  of  a  mechanical  motion,  he  were  to  refuse  interference 
and  allow  life  to  perish,  what  should  we  think  of  the  man's  heart,  and 
what  too  of  his  head  ?  Should  we  not  look  upon  him  with  equal  detes- 
tation for  his  cruelty  and  contempt  for  his  childish  imbecility,  setting 
him  down  at  once  as  a  heartless  monster  and  as  a  senseless  fool  ?  And 
if  thus  you  would  think  of  the  fellow-man  who  could  act  such  a  part, 
what  is  to  be  thought  of  the  God  who,  when  a  world's  salvation  was 
in  the  question,  involving  not  the  safety  of  a  human  life  merely,  or  of 
hundreds  and  thousands  of  such  lives,  but  the  eternal  well-being  of 
millions  of  immortal  souls,  should  allow  that  world  to  perish  for  want 
of  evidence  of  His  willingness  to  save  it,  rather  than  allow  the  order  of 
the  material  creation  to  be  in  a  single  point  or  for  a  single  moment 
interfered  with,  and  that  too  although  not  the  slightest  injury  was  by 
such  interference  to  be  done  to  the  system  ?  For  surely  by  no  one 
will  it  be  held  an  injury  to  be  made  subservient  to  a  purpose  incom- 
parably transcending  in  importance  any  or  all  of  those  which  by  its 
uninterrupted  regularity  it  is  effecting. 

"  Excepting  in  one  particular,  the  cases  I  have  thus  been  comparing 
are  closely  analogous.  The  particular  in  which  they  differ  is  this: 
thatinthe  case  of  the  mechanician  the  evil  was  not  by  him  anticipated, 
nor  consequently  the  need  for  his  interference,  whereas,  in  the  case  of 
the  Divine  Creator  and  Kuler,  all  was  in  full  anticipation,  and  the  occa- 
sional deviations  from  the  order  of  the  physical  creation  entered  as 
essentially  into  the  all-perfect  plan  of  His  moral  administration  as  the 
laws  by  which  that  order  was  fixed  entered  into  the  constitution  of 
the  physical  creation  itself  But  such  a  difference  there  necessarily  is 
between  everything  human  and  everything  Divine,  between  the  pur- 
poses and  plans  of  a  creature  who  '  knoweth  not  what  a  day  may  bring 
forth,'  and  the  purposes  and  plans  of  Him  who  '  knoweth  the  end 
from  the  beginning. '  It  evidently  does  not,  in  the  least  degree,  affect 
the  principle  of  the  analogy  or  invalidate  the  force  of  the  conclusion 
deduced  from  it. ' '     Pp.  70-73. 


MIRACLES.  275 

We  cannot  conclude  these  remarks  without  alluding  to 
the  fact  that  the  researches  of  modern  science  are  rapidly 
exploding  the  prejudices  which  Pantheism  on  the  one  hand, 
and  a  blind  devotion  to  the  supremacy  of  laws  on  the  other, 
have  created  and  upheld  against  all  extraordinary  interven- 
tions of  God.  The  appearances  of  our  globe  are  said  to  be 
utterly  inexplicable  uj)on  any  hypothesis  Avhich  does  not 
recognize  the  fact  that  the  plan  of  creation  Avas  so  framed 
from  the  beginning  as  to  include  at  successive  periods  the 
direct  agency  of  the  Deity.  The  earth  proclaims  from  her 
hills  and  dales,  her  rocks,  mountains  and  caverns,  that  she 
was  not  originally  made  and  placed  in  subjection  to  laws 
which  themselves  have  subsequently  brought  her  to  her 
present  posture.  She  has  not  developed  herself  into  her 
present  form,  nor  peopled  herself  with  her  present  inhabit- 
ants. That  science  which  at  its  early  dawn  was  hailed  as 
the  handmaid  of  infidelity  and  skepticism,  and  which  may 
yet  have  a  controversy  with,  the  Eecords  of  our  faith  not 
entirely  adjusted,  has  turned  the  whole  strength  of  its 
resources  against  the  fundamental  principle  of  Rationalism. 
It  has  broken  the  charm  which  our  limited  experience  had 
made  so  powerful  against  miracles,  and  has  presented  the 
physical  government  of  God  in  a  light  w^hich  positively 
turns  analogy  in  favoui*  of  the  supernatural.  The  geologist 
begins  with  miracles,  every  epoch  in  his  science  repeats  the 
number,  and  the  whole  earth  to  his  mind  is  vocal  with  the 
name.  He  finds  their  history  wherever  he  turns,  and  he 
would  as  soon  think  of  doubting  the  testimony  of  sense  as 
the  inference  which  the  phenomena  bear  upon  their  face. 
Future  generations  will  wonder  that  in  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury men  gravely  disputed  whether  God  could  interpose  in 
the  direct  exercise  of  His  power  in  the  world  He  has  made. 
The  miracle  a  century  hence  w^ill  be  made  as  credible  as  any 
common  fact.  Let  the  earth  be  explored,  let  its  physical 
history  be  traced,  and  a  mighty  voice  Avill  come  to  us  from 
the  tombs  of  its  perished  races  testifying  in  a  thousand 
instances  to  the  miraculous  hand  of  God,     Geplogy  and  the 


276  MIRACLES. 

Bible  must  kiss  and  embrace  each  other,  and  this  youngest 
daughter  of  Science  will  be  found,  like  the  Eastern  Magi, 
bringing  her  votive  offerings  to  the  cradle  of  the  Prince  of 
peace.  The  earth  can  never  turn  traitor  to  its  God,  and  its 
stones  have  already  begun  to  cry  out  against  those  who 
attempted  to  extract  from  them  a  lesson  of  infidelity  or 
Atheism. 


PART  II. 
PAPAL   CONTROVERSY. 


PREFATORY    NOTE. 


The  reader  is  presented  here  with  two  contributions  to  the  Papal  Con- 
troversy, viz. :  1.  An  Argument  against  the  Validity  of  Komish  Baptism  ; 
and,  2.  A  Discussion  of  the  Arguments  of  Eomanists  for  the  Apocrypha. 

The  history  of  the  former  is  as  follows :  The  Presbyterian  General 
Assembly  (Old  School)  meeting  at  Cincinnati  in  May,  1845,  had  occasion 
to  give  its  judgment  respecting  the  validity  of  Eoman  Catholic  baptism. 
Dr.  TnoRjra'ELL  being  present  and  taking  a  leading  part  in  the  debate, 
which  was  decided  in  accordance  with  the  views  he  advocated.  The 
Princeton  Review  of  the  following  July  brought  out  an  elaborate  crit- 
ique upon  the  Assembly's  decision  of  the  question,  which  it  is  understood 
was  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Charles  Hodge.  To  this  Dr.  Thornwell 
replied  in  a  series  of  articles,  which  appeared  in  1846,  over  the  name  of 
Henley,  in  the  colunms  of  the  Walchman  and  Observer,  published  at  Kich- 
mond,  Virginia.  No  reply  appeared  from  the  other  side.  In  order  to  pre- 
sent them  in  a  more  accessible  and  permanent  form,  these  articles  were 
subsequently  collected  and  republished  in  three  separate  portions  in  The 
Southern  Presbyterian  Review  of  July  and  October,  1851,  and  January, 
1852.  In  reproducing  them  here,  they  have  been  simply  brought  together 
as  one  treatise. 

This  treatise  contains  a  masterly  discussion  of  Justification  and  Sancti- 
fication,  which  supplies  the  defect  of  such  discussion  in  Vol.  II. 

The  history  of  the  latter  is  sufficiently  detailed  in  the  Dedication 
and  Preface.  The  former  was  in  these  words:  To  the  Rev.  Robert  J. 
Breckinridge,  D.D.,  an  ornament  to  his  cluircli  and  a  blessing  to  his 
country,  a  stranger  to  every  other  fear  but  the  fear  of  God,  the  bold  de- 
fender and  untiring  advocate  of  truth,  liI)orty  and  religion,  this  book, 


280  PREFATORY   NOTE. 

which  owes  its  existence  to  his  instrumentality,  Ls  now  affectionately  in- 
scribed by  the  author. 

The  Preface  bearing  date  July  12,  1844,  was  in  these  words: 
"The  history  of  the  present  publication  is  soon  told.  Some  time  in 
the  year  1841  I  wrote,  at  the  special  request  of  a  friend  in  Baltimore, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Breckinridge,  a  short  essay  on  the  Claims  of  the  Apocrypha 
to  Divine  Inspiration.  This  was  printed  anonymously  in  the  Baltimore 
Visitor,  as  No.  V.  of  a  series  of  articles  furnished  by  Protestants  in  a 
controversy  then  pending  with  the  domestic  chaplains  of  the  Archbishop 
of  Baltimore.  From  the  Visitor  it  was  copied  into  the  Spirit  of  the 
Nineteenth  Century,  some  time  during  1842.  From  the  Spirit  of  the 
Nineteenth  Century  it  was  transferred,  by  the  editor  of  the  Southern 
Chronicle,  a  valuable  newspaper  published  in  this  place,  to  his  own 
columns,  and,  without  consulting  me  or  in  any  way  apprising  me  of  his 
design,  he  took  the  liberty,  having  ascertained  that  I  was  the  author,  to 
append  my  name  to  it.  Seeing  it  printed  under  my  name,  and,  as  he 
might  naturally  suppose,  by  my  authority.  Dr.  Lynch,  a  Roman  Catholic 
Priest  of  Charleston,  of  reputed  cleverness  and  learning,  no  doubt  re- 
garded it  as  an  indirect  challenge  to  the  friends  of  Rome  to  vindicate 
their  Mistress  from  the  severe  charges  which  were  brought  against  her. 
He  accordingly  addressed  to  me  a  series  of  letters,  which  the  m^bers 
of  his  own  sect  pronounced  to  be  very  able,  and  to  which  the  following 
dissertations  (for,  though  in  the  form  of  letters,  they  are  really  essays)  are 
a  reply.  The  presumption  is,  that  the  full  strength  of  the  Papal  cause 
was  exhibited  by  its  champion ;  and  that  the  reader  may  be  able  to  judge 
for  himself  of  the  security  of  the  basis  on  which  the  inspiration  of  the 
Apocrypha  is  made  to  depend,  I  have  given  the  substance  of  Dr.  Lyncli's 
articles  in  the  Appendix.  This  work,  consequently,  presents  an  unusually 
full  discussion  of  the  whole  subject  connected  with  these  books.  I  have 
insisted  largely  upon  the  dogma  of  infallibility — more  largely,  perhaps, 
than  many  of  my  readers  may  think  to  be  consistent  with  the  general 
design  of  my  performance — ^because  I  regard  this  as  the  prop  and  bul- 
wark of  all  the  abominations  of  the  Papacy.  It  is  the  stronghold,  or 
rather,  as  Robert  Hall  expresses  it,  '  the  comer-stone  of  the  whole  system 
of  Popery — the  centre  of  union  amidst  all  the  animosities  and  disputes 
which  may  subsist  on  minur  sul)jects;  and  the  proper  definition  of  a 
Catholic  is,  one  who  professes  to  maintain  the  absolute  infallil)ility  of  a 
ocTi;i!ii  coniinnnity  styling  itself  the  Church.' 


PREFATORY    NOTE.  281 

"It  is  not  for  me  to  conimeiul  my  own  i)rocluction,  neitlicr  sliall  I  seek 
to  soften  tlie  asperity  of  criticism  by  plaintive  apologies  or  hnmble  con- 
fessions. In  justice,  however,  I  may  state  that  the  following  pages  were 
composed  in  the  midst  of  manifold  afflictions :  some  of  the  letters  were 
written  in  the  chamber  of  the  sick  and  by  the  bed  of  the  dying,  and  all 
were  thrown  off  under  a  pressure  of  duty  which  left  no  leisure  for  the 
task  but  the  hours  which  were  stolen  from  the  demands  of  nature.  If, 
under  circumstances  so  well  fitted  to  chasten  the  spirit  and  to  modify  the 
temper,  I  could  really  harbour  the  malignity  and  bitterness  which,  in 
certain  quarters,  have  been  violently  charged  upon  me,  I  must  carry  in 
my  bosom  the  heart  of  a  demon,  and  not  of  a  man.  'And  here  will  I 
make  an  end.  If  I  have  done  well,  and  as  is  fitting  the  story,  it  is  that 
which  I  desired ;  but  if  slenderly  and  meanly,  it  is  that  which  I  could 
attain  unto.' " 

It  may  be  here  suggested  that  the  reader  should  first  examine  the  little 
article  on  the  Apocrypha,  of  some  half  dozen  pages,  which  will  be  found 
in  the  Appendix,  and  then  the  letters  of  A.  P.  F.  which  it  occasioned, 
before  he  enters  on  the  elaborate  discussion  of  Dr.  Thorn  well.  That  lit- 
tle article  contains  the  expressions,  vassals  of  Rome,  captives  to  the  ear 
of  Home,  Papists,  Romanists,  which  A.  P.  F.  reprobates  as  shocking  to  ears 
polite.  He  holds  up  himself  and  also  his  Church  as  models  of  courtesy, 
patience  and  gentleness,  yet  his  letters  sometimes  betray,  in  spite  of  his 
efibrts,  a  different  spirit.  In  his  reply,  Dr.  Thornwell  was  undoubtedly 
led  to  employ  not  only  very  strong  language  in  dealing  with  the  corrupt 
and  pernicious  teachings  of  Kome,  but  also  considerable  asperity  of  lan- 
guage toward  his  assailant  personally.  Having  heard  him  express  the 
intention,  if  he  should  live  to  republish,  of  modifying  these  expressions, 
the  Editor  has  considered  it  his  duty  to  carry  out,  according  to  his  best 
judgment,  the  known  wishes  of  the  Author  in  this  particular.  No  such 
liberty  has,  however,  been  taken  with  any  one  of  his  denunciations  of  the 
Romish  system,  but  they  are  left  to  stand  in  all  their  unsparing  and  just 
severity. 

In  the  work  of  removing  such  blemishes  from  this  noble  production 
the  Editor  has  enjoyed  the  great  advantage  of  the  aid  of  Dr.  T.  Dwigiit 
WiTiiERSPOoN,  and  very  especially  of  Dr.  John  L.  Girardeau — l)oth 
intimate  friends  of  the  Author. 


282  PREFATORY    NOTE. 

The  Editor  feels  bound  to  acknowledge  here  some  degree  of  error  in 
the  general  statements  made  by  him  in  the  Preface  to  these  Collected 
Writings  respecting  this  discussion.  Bishop  (then  Dr.)  Lynch  did  not, 
as  he  had  been  led  to  suppose,  "  quit  the  field,"  nor  did  Dr.  Thornwell 
"  publish  both  sides  of  the  controversy,"  except  in  part.  The  former  con- 
tinued his  letters  in  reference  to  the  first  article  of  Dr.  Thornwell,  at  in- 
tervals, for  many  months  after  the  latter  had  begun  to  publish  his  letters 
in  reply,  but  he  never  undertook  any  answer  to  them. 

The  first  four  pages  of  the  Seventh  Letter  of  Dr.  Thornwell  being 
found  to  correspond  almost  verhatim  with  a  passage  in  the  second  of  the 
Discourses  on  Truth,  it  was  thought  proper  to  omit  those  pages.  More- 
over, the  Seventh  Letter  being  so  intimately  connected  with  the  discus- 
sion in  the  Sixth  as  to  constitute  just  a  corollary  from  it,  the  incorporation 
of  it  with  that  Letter  was  deemed  advisable.  This  makes  the  number  of 
the  Letters  as  here  presented  only  eighteen  instead  of  nineteen,  as  they 
appeared  in  the  original  volume. 

Touching  the  spelling  of  the  names  Augustine,  Bellarmine,  Turrettine, 
the  reader  may  notice  a  departure  in  this  volume  from  the  practice  of  the 
first  two.  General  use  is  various,  and  Dr.  Thornwell's  use  was  so  like- 
wise. It  was  thought  best  to  adopt  neither  spelling  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
other,  only  endeavouring  to  have  each  volume  conformable  to  itself  in 
this  particular. 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  THE  BAPTISM 

OF  THE 

CHURCH  OF  ROME. 


THE  remarks  which  appeared  in  the  Pnnceton  Review, 
the  July  number  of  the  jjast  year  (1845),  upon  the 
decision  of  the  Assembly  in  regard  to  the  validity  of  Rom- 
ish baptism,  deserve  a  more  elaborate  reply  than  they  have 
yet  received.  The  distinguished  reputation  of  the  scholar 
to  whom  they  are  ascribed,  and  the  evident  ability  with 
which  they  are  written — for,  whatever  may  be  said  of  the 
soundness  of  the  argument,  the  ingenuity  and  skill  with 
which  it  is  put  cannot  be  denied — entitle  them  to  special 
consideration.  And  as  the  presumption  is,  that  they  embody 
the  strongest  objections  which  can  be  proposed  to  the  decis- 
ion in  question,  a  refutation  of  them  is  likely  to  be  a  com- 
plete and  triumphant  defence  of  the  action  of  the  Assem- 
bly. Under  ordinary  circumstances,  it  might  be  attributed 
to  arrogance  in  ordinary  men  to  enter  the  lists  Avitli  Prince- 
ton, but  truth  always  carries  such  fearful  odds  in  its  favour 
that  the  advocate  of  a  just  cause  need  not  dread,  with  far 
inferior  ability,  to  encounter  those  whom  he  may  regard  in 
some  degree  the  patrons  of  error. 

As  in  the  General  Assembly  it  was  maintained  by  tliose 
who  denied  the  validity  of  Popish  baptism  that  the  ordi- 
nance itself  was  so  corrupted  in  its  constituent  elements — 
its  matter  and  its  fjrni — that  it  could  not  be  treated  as  the 

2  S3 


284  THE  VALIDITY   OF   THE   BAPTISM 

institution  of  Christ,  and  that  the  Papal  communion  as  an 
organized  body,  being  destitute  of  some  of  the  indispens- 
able marks  of  a  true  Church,  could  not  be  recognized  in  that 
character,  the  strictures  of  the  Reviewer  have  been  shaped 
with  a  reference  to  this  twofold  argument.  In  opposition 
to  the  Assembly,  he  asserts  that  the  essential  elements  of 
baptism  are  found  in  the  Romish  ceremony,  and  the  essen- 
tial elements  of  a  church  in  the  Papal  communion;  and 
what  is  still  more  remarkable,  he  insists  that,  even  upon 
the  supposition  that  the  Romish  sect  is  not  a  church  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  its  baptism 
is  not  valid.  The  consent  of  the  Protestant  world  for 
ages  and  generations  past  to  the  opinion  which  he  has 
espoused,  without  being  adduced  as  a  separate  and  distinct 
argument,  is  repeatedly  introduced  as  an  offset  to  whatever 
weight  the  overwhelming  vote  of  the  Assembly  might  carry 
with  it.     Such  is  a  general  view  of  the  Princeton  remarks. 

Now,  I  propose  to  show  that  their  distinguished  author 
has  failed  to  prove  any  one  of  these  positions, — either  that 
the  essential  elements  of  baptism  belong  to  the  Popish  or- 
dinance, or  that  without  being  a  church  Rome  can  have  the 
sacraments  of  Christ,  or  that  the  testimony  of  Protestant 
Christendom  is  more  clearly  in  his  favour  than  it  is  against 
him.     These  are  the  points  upon  which  issue  is  joined. 

To  the  question.  What  constitutes  the  validity  of  bap- 
tism ?  the  reply  obviously  is.  The  conformity  of  any  rite 
with  the  definition  of  baptism  which  may  be  collected  from 
the  Scriptures  and  justified  by  them.  Whatever  ordinance 
possesses  all  the  elements  which  belong  to  Christian  bap- 
tism is  Christian  baptism,  and  should  be  recognized  as  valid 
by  all  who  bear  the  Christian  name.  The  validity  of  a 
sacrament  does  not  depend  upon  any  effects  which  it  pro- 
duces, either  mysterious  or  common,  but  upon  its  nature : 
the  question  is,  not  what  it  does,  but  what  it  is ;  and  what- 
ever coincides  with  the  appointment  of  Christ,  so  as  to  be 
essentially  the  same  ordinance  which  He  instituted,  must  be 
received  as  bearing  His  sanction.     W^hen  the  Assembly, 


OF   THE   CHURCH    OF   ROME.  285 

therefore,  decided  that  Popish  baptism  is  not  vaHd,  it 
intended  to  assert  that  what  in  that  corrupt  communion  is 
administered  under  the  name  of  baptism  is  really  a  differ- 
ent institution  from  the  ordinance  of  Christ.  Rome's  cere- 
mony does  not  answer  to  a  just  definition  of  the  Christian 
sacrament. 

In  enumerating  the  elements  of  baptism  the  Reviewer 
seems  to  have  fallen  into  two  mistakes — one  wholly  unim- 
portant, the  other  materially  affecting  the  question  in  dis- 
pute. Intention  is  treated  as  something  distinct  from  the 
foi^m  of  baptism ;  and  matter,  form  and  intention  are  repre- 
sented as  constituting  the  essence  of  the  ordinance.  Now, 
in  the  language  of  the  Schools,  for-m  and  essence  are  equiva- 
lent expressions.  The  form  of  a  thing  is  that  wdiich  makes 
it  what  it  is,  w^hich  distinguishes  it  from  all  other  beings, 
and  limits  and  defines  our  conceptions  of  its  properties.^ 
According  to  Aristotle  it  is  the  forms  impressed  upon  the 
first  matter  which  enable  us  to  discriminate  betwixt  differ- 
ent substances.  As  intention,  according  to  the  statement 
of  the  Reviewer,  is  a  part  of  the  essence  of  baptism,  it  is 
consequently  an  error  of  arrangement  to  make  it  different 
from  the  form.  The  whole  idea  of  baptism  may  be  era- 
braced  under  two  heads.  The  Reviewer,  no  doubt,  had  his 
eye  upon  the  Peripatetic  division  of  causes,  but  the  intention 
of  which  he  speaks  cannot  be  the  final  cause  of  Aristotle, 
because  that  w'as  not  an  ingredient  of  the  essence.  The  use 
of  a  table,  or  the  purpose  of  a  mechanic  in  making  it,  is  no 
part  of  the  nature  of  the  table.     But  the  intention  in  bap- 

1  TL  (Twf  TO  ei6oc ;  ro  ri  ?/v  eivai.  Arist.  Met.,  L.  vii.,  c.  4.  "  Form  is 
that,"  says  Stanley,  quoting  this  passage,  "  which  tlie  thing  itself  is  said 
to  be  per  se,  the  being  of  a  thing  what  it  is,  the  whole  common  nature 
and  essence  of  a  thing  answerable  to  the  definition."  Philos.,  part  4th, 
chap.  3d.  "Now  that  accident,"  says  Hobbes,  "for  which  we  give  a  cer- 
tain name  to  any  body,  or  the  accident  which  denominates  its  subject,  is 
commonly  called  the  essexce  thereof,  and  the  same  essence,  ina.'smucli  as 
it  is  generated,  is  called  the  form."  Philosophy.  "Ens  a  forma  habet," 
says  Wolfius,  "ut  sit  hiijus  generis  vel  speciei  atque  ab  aliis  distinguatur. 
Hinc  scholastici  aiunt,  formam  dare  esse  rei,  dare  distingui,"  Ontologia, 
Pars  ii.,  sec.  3,  c.  2,  ^  945. 


286  THE   VALIDITY    OF   THE    BAPTISM 

tism  is  indispensable  to  the  existence  of  the  ordinance ;  it  is 
a  necessary  element  of  a  just  definition,  and  therefore  belongs 
appropriately  to  the  form.  The  true  final  cause  exists  in 
the  mind  of  God.  In  the  case  of  baptism  a  definition 
which  should  set  forth  the  matter  and  form  fully  and  com- 
pletely would  coincide  exactly  with  the  logical  rule  which 
resolves  a  definition  into  the  nearest  genus  and  the  specific 
difference.  The  matter,  watei',  is  a  generic  term,  and  sug- 
gests every  other  kind  of  ablution  besides  that  of  baptism, 
while  the  form  distinguishes  this  particular  mode  of  wash- 
ing from  every  other  mode  of  using  this  element. 

As  this  mistake  in  arrangement,  however,  is  a  mere  ques- 
tion of  words  and  names,  I  pass  to  a  more  important  error 
— ^the  omission  of  one  of  the  elements  which,  according  to 
the  great  majority  of  Protestant  confessions,  enters  into  the 
essence  of  baptism.  The  form  does  not  consist  alone  in 
washing  with  water,  with  solemn  invocation  of  the  name 
of  the  Trinity,  and  with  the  professed  purpose  of  complying 
with  the  command  of  Christ.  There  must  be  some  one  to 
make  the  invocation  and  to  apply  the  water.  These  are 
acts  which  require  an  agent — services  which  demand  a  ser- 
vant. Not  any  application  of  water  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity,  with  the  ostensible  design  of  signing  and  sealing 
the  blessings  of  the  new  and  everlasting  covenant,  con- 
stitutes baptism :  the  water  must  be  applied  by  one  who  is 
lawfully  commissioned  to  dispense  the  mysteries  of  Christ. 
There  must  be  an  instrumental,  as  well  as  a  material  and 
formal,  cause.  This  fact  the  Reviewer  seems  neither  pre- 
pared to  deny  nor  assert ;  and,  though  he  takes  no  notice 
of  it  in  his  formal  definition  of  baptism,  he  is  yet  willing 
to  concede  it  for  the  sake  of  argument.  The  question,  then, 
is,  Do  these  four  things  enter  into  the  baptisms  administered 
by  the  authority  of  the  Romish  Church  ?  Do  her  priests 
wash  with  water  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  with  the  pro- 
fessed design  of  complying  xcith  the  command  of  Christ,  and 
are  they  themselves  to  be  regarded  as  lawful  ministers  of  the 
Word/    The  Princeton  Review  has  undertaken,  in  all  these 


OF  THE   CHURCH   OF   ROME.  287 

instances,  to  prove  the  affirmative;  and  it  is  my  purpose  to 
show  that  it  has  signally  failed — that,  according  to  their 
scriptural  import,  not  one  of  these  particulars  is  found  in 
the  Po])ish  ordinance. 

I.  The  EevicAver  expresses  great  surprise  ^  at  the  state- 
ment made  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly  that  Romanists 
are  accustomed  to  corrupt  the  Avater  which  they  use  in 
baptism  with  a  mixture  of  oil.  It  is  rather  a  matter  of 
astonishment  that  he  himself  should  not  have  been  aware 
of  so  notorious  a  fact.  It  is  true  that  their  church  formu- 
laries make  natural  water  the  only  thing  essential  to  the 
matter  of  the  ordinance,  but  it  is  equally  indisputable  that 
such  water  is  only  used  in  cases  of  urgent  and  extreme 
necessity.  Whenever  the  rite  is  administered  with  solemn 
ceremonies — and  these  can  never  be  omitted  except  upon  a 
plea  which  is  equally  valid  to  dispense  with  the  services  of 
a  priest — the  water,  instead  of  being  applied  in  its  natural 
state,  in  conformity  with  the  command  of  Christ,  is  pre- 
viously consecrated,  or  rather  profaned,  by  the  infusion  of 
chrism,  a  holy  compound  of  balsam  and  oil.  Innovations 
upon  the  simplicity  of  the  sacraments  began  with  the  spirit 
of  superstition  in  the  Christian  Church,  and  grew  and 
strengthened  until  they  reached  their  consummation  in  the 
magical  liturgy  of  Rome.  The  precise  period  at  which  this 
specific  mode  of  consecrating  the  water  was  first  introduced 
I  am  unable  to  determine,  but  there  is  an  evident  reference 
to  it  in  the  Ecclesiastical  Hierarchy  which  goes  under  the 
name  of  Dionysius.  "  Immediately  after  the  unction," 
says  Bingham,^  "  the  minister  proceeded  to  consecrate  the 
water,  or  the  bishop,  if  he  were  present,  consecrated  it, 
while  the  priests  were  finishing  the  unction ;  for  so  the 
author,  under  the  name  of  Dionysius,  represents  it.  '  While 
the  priests,'  says  he,  'are  finishing  the  unction,  the  bishop 

^  "We  were,  therefore,  greatly  surprised  to  see  that  it  Avas  stated  on  the 
floor  of  tlie  Assembly  that  Romanists  did  not  baptize  witli  water,  but  with 
water  mixed  with  oil." — Prineeton  Review,  July,  1845,  p.  449. 

*  Origines  Ecclesiastics,  Lib.  xi.,  cap.  x.,  O- 


288  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

comes  to  the  Mother  of  Adoption  (so  he  calls  the  font),  and, 
by  invocation,  sanctifies  the  water  in  it ;  thrice  pouring  in 
some  of  the  holy  chrism,  in  a  manner  representing  the  sign 
of  the  cross.' " 

The  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  not  only  insists 
upon  this  mixture  whenever  baptism  is  performed  with 
solemn  ceremonies,  but  states  distinctly  that  it  has  always 
been  observed  in  the  Catholic  Church,  and  traces  its  origin 
to  apostolical  tradition.  "  Illud  vero  animadvertendum 
est,  quamvis  aqua  simplex,  quse  nihil  aliud  admixtum  habet, 
materia  apta  sit  ad  hoc  sacramentum  conficiendum,  quoties 
scilicet  baptismi  ministrandi  necessitas  incidat,  tamen  ex 
Apostolorum  traditioue  semper  in  Catholica  Ecclesia  obser- 
vatum  esse,  ut  cum  solemnibus  ceremoniis  baptismus  con- 
ficitur,  sacrum  etiam  Chrisma  addatur,  quo  baj)tismi  effectum 
magis  declarari  perspicuum  est."^ 

This  same  catechism  divides  the  ceremonies  of  baptism, 
as  is  usual  among  the  Komish  writers  upon  the  subject,  into 
three  classes — the  first  embracing  those  which  precede,  the 
second,  those  which  accompany,  and  the  third,  those  which 
follow,  the  administration  of  the  ordinance.  "  In  primis  " 
— it  begins  the  explanation  of  the  first  head — "  igitur  aqua 
paranda  est,  qua  ad  baptismum  uti  oportet.  Conseeratur, 
enim,  baptismi  fons,  addito  mysticse  unctionis  oleo,  neque 
id  omni  tempore  fieri  permissum  est;  sed  more  majorum, 
festi  quidam  dies,  qui  omnium  celeberrimi  et  sanctissimi 
Optimo  jure  habendi  sunt,  expectantur;  in  quorum  vigiliis 
sacrte  ablutionis  aqua  conficitur,"  etc.  "  In  the  first  place, 
the  water  to  be  used  in  baptism  must  be  prepared.  The 
font  is  consecrated  by  adding  the  oil  of  the  mystic  unction. 
Nor  can  this  be  done  at  any  time ;  but,  in  conformity  with 
ancient  usage,  is  delayed  until  the  vigils  of  the  most  cele- 
brated and  holy  festivals."  ^ 

Durand  enumerates  four  kinds  of  blessed  Avater,  among 
which  he  includes  the  water  of  baptism,  and  gives  a  full 
and  particular  account  of  the  mode  of  sanctifying  it. 
'  Pars  ii.,  cap.  ii.,  §  11.  ^  Pars  ii.,  cap.  ii.,  §  60. 


OF   THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  289 

"  In  the  last  place,  the  Avatcr  is  mixed  with  chrism — as  we 
have  previously  mentioned.  Whence  it  is  said  in  Burcard, 
lib.  iii.,  We  bless  the  fonts  of  baptism  toith  the  oil  of  unction. 
And  Augustin,  using  the  same  words,  subjoins  that  it  is 
done  more  from  a  mystical  reason  than  from  any  authority 
of  Scripture.  ■  By  a  mixture  of  this  sort  the  union  of  Christ 
with  the  Church  is  signified  ;  the  chrism  representing  Christ, 
and  the  water  the  people."  ^ 

To  the  same  purport  is  the  testimony  of  Alcuin,  the  famous 
preceptor  of  Charlemagne :  "  These  things  having  been  com- 
pleted before  the  fonts,  and  silence  instituted,  the  priest 
standing,  the  benediction  of  the  font  follows :  Omnipotent, 
Eternal  God,  etc.  Then  succeeds  the  consecration  of  the 
font,  to  be  chanted,  as  in  the  preface  to  the  mass :  Eternal 
God,  loho  by  the  invisible  power  of  Thy  sacraments.  At  the 
invocation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  whom  the  priest  proclaims 
with  a  lofty  voice — that  is,  with  deep  affection  of  mind — the 
blessed  candle  is  deposited  in  the  water,  or  those  which  had 
been  lighted  from  it,  to  show  the  presence  of  the  Spirit, 
the  priest  now  saying  :  May  He  descend  in  this  fullness  of 
the  font.  The  font  being  blessed,  the  Pontiff  receives  from 
the  Archdeacon  the  chrism  with  oil  mixed  in  a  vase,  and 
sprinkles  it  in  the  midst  of  the  font  in  the  form  of  a 
cross."  ^ 

1  "Postremo  sit  admixtio  Chrismatis  in  aqua,  sicut  dictum  est.  Unde 
dicitur  in  Burcardo,  lib.  iii.,  '  benedicimus  fontes  baptismatis  oleo  unctio- 
nis;'  et  Augustinus  eisdem  verbis  utcns  subjecit  quod  hoc  magis  tacite, 
sire  sine  Scriptura,  hac  mystica  ratione  introductum  est  quam  per  aliquam 
Scripturam.  Per  hujusmodi  ergo  adniixtionem  unio  Christi  et  Ecclesise 
significatur.  Nam  Chrisma  est  Christus,  aqua  populus,  et  dicitur :  Sancti- 
ficetur  fans  isle.  Ex  quibus  verbis  ad  quid  fiat  admixtio  satis  datur  in- 
telligi."     De  Divinis  Officiis,  Lib.  vi.,  fol.  cxl.,  Lyons  Edition,  1518. 

^  "  Quibus  finitis  ante  fontes  et  facto  silentio,  stante  sacerdote,  sequitur 
benedictio  fontis :  Omnipotens,  sempiterne  Deus,  et  reliqua.  Sequitur 
consecratio  fontis,  in  modum  prsefationis  decantanda:  yJElerne  Deu^,  qui 
invisibili  poientia  sacramentorum  tuorum.  Ad  invocationem  vero  Spiritus 
Sancti,  quem  sacerdos  celsa  voce  proclamat,  id  est,  alto  mentis  aflectu, 
deponitur  cereus  benedictus  in  aquam,  sive  illi  qui  ab  eo  illuminati  sunt, 
ad  demonstrandam  scilicet  Spiritus  Sancti  prcsontiam,  sacerdote  jam 
Vol.  III.*-] 9 


290  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

These  passages,  from  Durand  and  Alcuin,  are  extracted 
from  their  accounts  of  the  solemnities  of  the  great  Sab- 
bath— the  Saturday  preceding  Easter.  This  festival  and 
Pentecost  were  the  solemn  seasons  to  which,  in  the  times 
of  Leo,  the  administration  of  baptism  was  confined,  except 
in  cases  of  necessity ;  and  hence  it  is  in  the  description  of 
these  festivals  that  we  are  to  look  for  a  detailed  exhibition 
of  the  ceremonies  connected  with  its  due  celebration.  In 
the  first  book  of  Martene  De  Antiquis  Ecclesiae  Ritibus 
may  .be  seen  the  forms,  taken  from  various  liturgies,  of 
consecrating  the  font,  and  the  infusion  of  the  chrism  is, 
invariably,  a  part  of  the  process.^  Hurd,  in  his  interesting 
work  on  religious  rites  and  ceremonies,  mentions  among 
the  solemnities  of  Easter-eve  the  consecration  of  the  waters 
of  baptism :  "  The  officiating  priest  perfumes  the  font 
thrice  with  frankincense,  after  which,  he  takes  some  of  the 
oil  used  in  baptism,  and  pours  it  on  the  holy  water  cross- 
ways,  mixed  with  chrism,  and  this  is  reserved  to  baptize 

dicente:  Descendat  in  hanc  plenitudinem  fontis.  Fonte  benedicto,  accipit 
Pontifex  chrisma  cum  oleo  mixto  in  vase  ab  Archidiacono  et  aspergit  per 
medium  fontis  in  modum  crucis."  De  Divinis  Officiis,  cap.  xix.  De 
Sabbato  Sanctse  Vigil.  Paschse. 

1  The  following  specimens  may  be  taken  : — 1.  Ex  Missali  Gotliico-Galli- 
cano :  After  a  prayer  for  blessing  the  fonts  and  the  exorcism  of  the  water, 
the  rubric  directs  that  the  water  shall  be  blown  upon  three  times,  and  the 
chrism  infused  into  it  in  the  form  of  a  cross.  Deinde  insufflas  aquam  per 
tres  vices,  et  mittis  chrisma  in  modum  crucis,  et  dicis — Ivfusio  chrisma 
salutaris  Domini  nostri  Jem  Christi,  ut  fiat  fons  aquce  scdienlis  cutictis 
descendentibtis  in  eo,  ni  vitani  ceternam.     Amen.     Lib.  i..  Art.  18,  ordo  i. 

2.  Ex  Veteri  Missali  Gallicano:  After  the  prayers  for  blessing  the 
fonts,  the  rubric  directs  that  three  crosses  should  be  made  upon  the  water 
with  chrism.  Postea  facis  tres  cruces  super  aquam  de  chrisma  et  dicis, 
etc.     Ibid.,  ordo  ii. 

3.  From  an  old  Paris  Ritual,  the  form  of  administering  baptism  on  the 
great  Sabbath,  the  Saturday  preceding  Easter,  is  extracted.  Ibid.,  ordo  x. 
Among  the  other  ceremonies  enumerated,  the  infusion  of  the  clirisni  is  ex- 
pressly mentioned.  "  Inde,"  is  the  rubric  for  that  purpose,  "  indc  accipiens 
vas  aureum  cum  chrismate,  fundit  chrisma  in  fonte  in  modum  crucis,  et 
expandit  aquam  cum  manu  sua,  tunc  baptizantur  infantes,  primum  mas- 
culi,  deinde  feminae." 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  291 

all  the  catechumens  or  chiklreu  who  shall  be  brought  to 
the  church."  ^ 

These  authorities,  I  trust,  are  sufficient  to  diminish  the 
Reviewer's  surprise  at  the  statement  made  on  the  floor  of 
the  Assembly,  and  to  put  it  beyond  doubt  that  the  matter 
of  Romish  baptism  is  not  simple,  natural  water,  but  water 
artificially  corrupted.  Whether  this  corruption  vitiates  the 
sacrament  to  such  an  extent  as  seriously  to  affect  its  validity 
is  not  so  trivial  a  question  as  the  Reviewer  supposes.  As 
baptism  is  a  species  of  ablution,  whatever  unfits  the  water 
for  the  purpose  of  cleansing  unfits  it  for  the  Christian  ordi- 
nance. Such  mixtures  as  are  found  in  nature,  in  springs, 
pools,  rivers  and  seas,  so  long  as  they  do  not  affect  the 
liquidity  of  the  fluid,  do  not  affect  its  adaptation  to  any  of 
the  ordinary  purposes  of  life.  Men  still  roash  with  it.  But 
a  water  which  cannot  be  used  in  washing  is  not  suitable  mat- 
ter for  baptism,  and  as  oil  evidently  impairs  its  cleansing 
properties,  it  destroys  that  very  quality  in  water  in  conse- 
quence of  w^hich  it  is  capable  of  representing  the  purifying 
influence  of  regeneration  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  No  more  incongruous  substances  can  be  found  than 
water  and  oil,  and  to  wash  in  such  a  mixture  is  not  to  cleanse, 
but  defile.  The  significancy  of  the  rite  is  affected ;  it  is  not 
made  to  consist  in  simply  washing  with  water,  but  in  wash- 
ing with  a  water  duly  consecrated  with  oil.  In  the  present 
case  attention  is  called  to  the  mixture ;  great  importance  is 
attached  to  it,  and  it  is  in  consequence  of  the  chrism  that  the 
mixed  substance  is  used  in  preference  to  the  pure,  simple, 
natural  element.  It  is  not  becaase  it  is  ivater,  but  because 
it  is  sanctified  by  oil,  that  the  priests  employ  it  in  baptism. 
This  is,  certainly,  not  making  the  significancy  of  the  rite 
depend  upon  washing  with  water ;  it  makes  it  equally 
depend  upon  the  oil  of  the  mystic  unction.  Tiie  very  pur- 
pose of  the  mixture  is  to  increase  the  significancy  of  the 
rite — to  declare  more  fully  the  nature  and  efl'ect  of  the  bap- 

1  Hurd's  History  of  the  Kites,  Ceremonies  and  Customs  (Religious)  of 
the  Wliole  World,  p.  218. 


292  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

tism.  The  oil  is,  consequently,  made  a  prominent  element 
in  the  compound,  and  it  is  precisely  that  wliicli  in  ordinary- 
cases  fits  the  water  for  its  use.  In  other  cases  the  foreign 
element  is  left  entirely  out  of  view,  and  the  adulterated 
substance  is  used  as  water,  and  nothing  but  water.  But 
here  it  is  not,  notwithstanding  the  mixture,  but,  because  of 
the  mixture,  that  the  corruj^ted  water  is  employed.  It  is  not 
used  as  water  and  nothing  but  water,  but  as  \vater  invested 
with  new  properties  in  consequence  of  the  oil.  The  pres- 
ence of  the  foreign  matter  is  an  improvement,  when  canon- 
ically  introduced,  upon  the  original  appointment  of  the 
Saviour;  and  so  much  importance  is  attached  to  it  that 
Rome  permits  simple  water  to  be  used  only  on  the  plea 
which  may  also  dispense  with  the  services  of  the  priest — 
the  plea  of  stern  necessity.  Water  without  the  chrism  may 
be  employed  in  that  class  of  cases  in  which  Jews,  Infidels 
and  Turks  are  authorized  to  baj)tize.  Through  the  pressure 
of  necessity  God  may  sanctify  it  without  the  oil,  but  in  ordi- 
nary cases  the  charm  lies  in  the  mystic  unction. 

These  two  circumstances  seem  to  me  to  distinguish  the 
mixture  in  question  from  all  the  combinations  which  are 
found  in  nature:  1.  That  the  oil  destroys  the  ^/)iess  of 
water  for  the  purpose  of  ablution,  and  so  affects  the  sig- 
nificancy  of  the  rite ;  and,  2.  That  the  mixture  is  not  used 
as  water,  but  that  peculiar  stress  is  laid  upon  the  foreign 
element.  It  enters  into  the  baptism  as  a  very  important 
ingredient.  He  who  baptizes  with  rain  or  cistern  water,  or 
water  impregnated  with  saline  mixtures,  overlooks  the  for- 
eign matter  and  attaches  value  only  to  the  water.  He  uses 
the  mixture  simply  as  water.  But  Rome  makes  the  cor- 
ruption of  the  water  a  part  of  her  solemn  ceremonies ;  the 
chrism  works  wonders  in  the  font,  and  imparts  to  it  an  effi- 
cacy which  only  in  rare  cases  it  would  otherwise  possess. 
The  mixture  of  the  chrism  with  the  water  is,  according  to 
Durand,  a  sign  of  the  union  between  Christ  and  the  Church ; 
and  as  an  evidence  of  the  value  attached  to  the  'chrism,  he 
adds  that  it  represents  Christ,  while  the  water  represents  the 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  293 

people.  The  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  teaches  that 
additional  significancy  is  given  to  the  water  by  the  holy 
chrism.  We  may  concede  to  the  Reviewer  "  that  water 
with  oil  thrown  on  it  is  still  water" — that  is,  it  may  be 
heated  and  used,  notwithstanding  the  mixture,  as  water; 
that  wine  adulterated  with  water  continues  to  be  wine,  or 
may  be  used  as  such,  provided  the  mixture  is  not  made  a 
matter  of  prominent  observation.  But  when  the  foreign 
elements  are  dignified  into  importance,  and  made  to  play  a 
part  in  the  offices  performed,  then  the  water  is  no  longer 
simple  water,  but  water  and  oil — the  wine  is  no  longer  sim- 
ple Avine,  but  wine  and  water.  If  in  the  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  we  were  professedly  to  adulterate  the  wine 
in  order  to  give  superior  efficacy  to  it,  and  to  use  the  com- 
pound not  simply  as  wine,  but  as  wine  invested  with  new 
properties  in  consequence  of  the  mixture,  the  matter  of  the 
sacrament  would  be  evidently  vitiated,  and  that  not  because 
it  would  be  a  mixture,  but  because  it  would  be  vsed  as  a 
mixture.  If  the  same  wune  were  used  as  wine,  notwith- 
standing the  mixture,  there  would  be  no  impropriety,  but 
when  it  is  used  in  consequence  of  the  mixture,  the  case  is 
manifestly  different. 

It  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  the  Romanists  them- 
selves condemn  a  practice  which  seems  to  be  fully  as  justifi- 
able as  their  own.  "  But  neither  are  they  to  be  approved, 
of  whom  Egbert,  archbishop  of  York,  says  (Excerp.,  cap.  42), 
"  There  are  some  who  mix  wine  with  the  water  of  baptism, 
not  rightly,  because  Christ  did  not  command  to  be  baptized 
with  wine,  but  with  water."  ^  And  yet  in  the  very  next  sec- 
tion this  writer  insists  on  the  importance  of  using  consecrated 
water,  and  not  profane,  Avhenever  the  ordinance  is  adminis- 
tered, and  refers  among  other  authorities  to  the  passage  from 
Dionysius,  already  quoted,  which  shows  that  the  consecra- 
^  De  Aiitiquis  Ecclesia?  Ritihus,  Lib.  i.,  cap.  i.,  art.  14.  "Scd  neqiie 
probandi  .sunt  illi,"  says  Martene,  "  de  quibus  Egbcrtns  Eboracensis  archi- 
episoopus  (in  E.xcerptis),  cap.  42.  '  Sunt  quidam,  iixpiit,  qui  miscent  viiunn 
cum  aqua  baptismatis,  non  recte ;  quia  C'liristus  non  jussit  l)aptizari  vino, 
sed  aqua.' " 


294  THE    VALIDITY   OF    THE    BAPTISM 

tion  embraced  the  infusion  of  chrism  in  the  form  of  a  cross. 
It  is  difficult  to  see  how  a  mixture  with  wine  vitiates  the 
sacrament,  while  a  mixture  with  oil  improves  it.  The  com- 
mand of  Christ,  which  is  very  properly  pleaded  against 
wine,  applies  as  conclusively  to  chrism.  But  whatever  may 
be  said  of  this  self-condemnation  on  the  part  of  Rome,  I 
think  it  cannot  be  denied  that  in  that  idolatrous  communion 
the  matter  of  baptism  is  corrupted,  and  that  the  Reviewer 
has  consequently  failed  in  making  out  his  first  point,  that 
Papal  baptism  is  a  washing  with  water,  and  that  this  is  the 
sole  matter  of  the  sacrament.  But  it  may  be  asked,  What, 
then  ?  Did  baptism  become  extinct  when  this  innovation 
was  first  introduced  among  the  churches  that  adopted  it? 
My  reply  is,  That  I  know  of  no  sacredness  in  baptism 
which  should  entitle  it  to  be  preserved  in  its  integrity  when 
the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  has  been  confessedly 
abolished  in  the  Latin  Church.  Why  should  baptism  be 
perpetuated  entire,  and  the  supper  transmitted  with  griev- 
ous mutilations?  Or  will  it  be  maintained  that  the  essence 
of  the  supper  was  still  retained  when  the  cup  was  denied  to 
the  laity  ?  Is  it  more  incredible  that  an  outward  ordinance 
should  be  invalidated  than  that  the  precious  truths  which  it 
was  designed  to  represent  should  be  lost  ?  Is  the  shell  more 
important  than  the  substance?  And  shall  we  admit  that 
the  cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  have  been  damnably 
corrupted  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  yet  be  afraid  to 
declare  that  the  signs  and  seals  of  the  covenant  have  shared 
the  same  fate  ?  If  Rome  is  corrupt  in  doctrine,  I  see  not 
why  she  may  not  be  equally  corrupt  in  ordinances,  and  if 
slie  has  lost  one  sacrament,  I  see  not  why  she  may  not  liave 
lost  the  other ;  and  as  the  foundations  of  her  apostasy  were 
laid  in  the  ages  immediately  succeeding  the  time  of  the 
Apostles,  I  cannot  understand  why  the  loss  of  the  real 
sacrament  of  baptism  may  not  have  been  an  early  symptom 
of  degeneracy  and  decay. 

But  our  business  is  with  truth  and  not  with  consequences. 
We  should  not  be  deterred  from  admitting  a  scriptural  con- 


OF    THE    CIIUKCII    OF    ROME.  295 

elusion  because  it  removes,  with  a  desolating  besom,  the 
structures  of  anticjuity.  AVe  are  not  to  say,  a  ^jriori,  that 
the  Church  in  the  fifth  or  sixth  centuries  musi  have  had  the 
true  sacrament  of  baptism,  and  then  infer  tiiat  such  and 
such  corruptions  do  not  invalidate  the  ordinance.  But  we 
are  first  to  ascertain  from  the  Scriptures  what  the  true  sacra- 
ment of  baptism  is,  and  then  judge  the  practice  of  the 
Church  in  every  age  by  this  standard.  If  its  customs  have 
at  any  time  departed  from  the  law  and  the  testimony,  let 
them  be  condemned;  if  they  have  been  something  essen- 
tially different  from  what  God  had  enjoined,  let  them  be 
denounced  as  spurious.  The  unbroken  transmission  of  a 
visible  Church  in  any  line  of  succession  is  a  figment  of 
Papists  and  Prelatists.  Conformity  with  the  Scriptures,  and 
not  ecclesiastical  genealogy,  is  the  true  touchstone  of  a  sound 
church-state ;  and  if  our  fathers  were  without  the  ordi- 
nances, and  fed  upon  ashes  for  bread,  let  U6  only  be  the  more 
thankful  for  the  greater  privileges  vouchsafed  to  ourselves. 

II.  The  form  of  baptism,  or  that  which  distinguishes 
this  species  of  ablution  from  every  other  washing  with 
water,  consists  in  the  relations  which,  according  to  the  ap- 
pointment of  Christ,  it  sustains  to  the  covenant  of  grace. 
The  solemn  invocation  of  the  names  of  the  Trinity,^  though 
a  circumstance  attending  the  actual  application  of  the  ele- 
ment, and  perhaps  an  indispensable  circumstance,  does  not 
constitute  the  whole  essence  of  the  ordinance.  A  Socinian 
may  undoubtedly  employ  the  same  fornudary  as  ourselves. 
And  yet,  according  to  repeated  admissions  of  tlie  Reviewer 
himself,^  his  want  of  faith  in  the  Perstmal  distinctions  of  the 
Godhead  would  be  sufficient  to  render  void  the  pretended 
sacrament.  To  baptize  in  the  name  of  Father,  Son  and 
Spirit  is  not  to  pronounce  these  words  as  an  idle  form  or  a 
mystical  charm,  but  to  acknowledge  that  solemn  compact 
into  which  those  glorious  Agents  entered,  from  eternity,  for 

^  "Is  it  then  correct  as  to  the  form?     Is  it  administered  in  tlic  name  of 
the  Trinity?"— Princeton  Review,  July,  1845,  p.  450. 
2  Pages  44G-4C.S. 


296  THE   VALIDITY    OF  THE   BAPTISM 

the  redemption  of  the  Church.  It  is  the  faith  of  the  Trin- 
ity, much  more  than  the  names  of  its  separate  Persons,  that 
belongs  to  the  essence  of  baptism ;  and  where  this  faith 
existed,  some  of  the  ancient  fathers  contended — how  justly  I 
shall  not  undertake  to  decide — that  the  ordinance  was  validly 
administered,  even  though  done  without  the  explicit  men- 
tion of  all  the  Persons  of  the  Godhead.  "  He  that  is  blessed 
in  Christ,"  says  Ambrose,^  "  is  blessed  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ;  because  the  name  is  one 
and  the  power  one.  The  Ethiopian  eunuch,  who  was  bap- 
tized in  Christ,  had  the  sacrament  complete.  If  a  man 
names  only  a  single  Person  expressly  in  words,  either 
Father,  Son  or  Holy  Ghost,  so  long  as  he  does  not  deny 
in  his  faith  either  Father,  Son  or  Holy  Ghost,  the  sacra- 
ment of  faith  is  complete ;  as,  on  the  other  hand,  if  a  man 
in  words  express  all  the  three  persons.  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Ghost,  but  in  his  faith  diminishes  the  power  either 
of  the  Father,  or  Son,  or  Holy  Ghost,  the  sacrament  of 
faith  is  void."  Whatever  objection  may  lie  against  the  first 
part  of  this  statement,  that  the  explicit  mention  of  all  the 
Persons  of  the  Trinity  is  not  indispensable  to  the  due  ad- 
ministration of  baptism,  none  can  decently  deny  that  to 
name  them  without  believing  in  them  is  not  to  celebrate 
but  to  profane  the  ordinance. 

As,  therefore,  the  invocation  of  the  Trinity  may  take 
place  in  ablutions  which  it  is  impossible  to  recognize  as  the 
baptism  instituted  by  Christ,  it  cannot  constitute  the  lahole 
form  of  the  sacrament.  In  this  there  is  no  real  difference 
between  the  Reviewer  and  myself.  He  only  uses  the  word 
form  in  a  different  sense  from  that  in  Avhich  I  have  been 
accustomed  to  employ  it,  but  by  no  means  confines  the 
essence  of  the  sacrament  to  what  he  denominates  its  form. 
On  the  contrary,  he  makes  the  design  or  intention^  an  essen- 

^  Bingham,  Origines  Ecclesiasticse,  B.  xi.,  c.  iii.,  sec.  3. 

^  "There  is,  liowever,  a  third  particiUar  inchided  in  tliis  definition  of 
baptism ;  it  mnst  be  with  tlie  design  to  '  signify  and  seal  our  ingrafting 
into  Clirist,  and  partaking  of  tlic  benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and 
our  engagements  to  be  the  Lord's.'    ....   No  washing  with  water,  even 


OF   THE   CHURCH   OP   ROME.  297 

tial  part  of  the  ordinance,  and  means  by  it  precisely  what  I 
would  be  understood  to  convey  when  I  resolve  the  form  of 
a  sacrament  into  the  relations  which  its  material  elements, 
according  to  the  appointment  of  Christ,  sustain  to  the  cove- 
nant of  grace.  To  eat  bread  and  to  drink  wine  is  not 
necessarily  to  celebrate  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper; 
to  be  immersed  or  sprinkled — a  formal  invocation  of  the 
names  of  the  Trinity  accompanying  the  deed — is  not  neces- 
sarily to  be  baptized.  There  must  be  a  reference  to  the 
economy  of  grace,  a  distinct  recognition  of  that  precious 
scheme  of  redemption  in  its  essential  features  and  funda- 
mental doctrines,  without  which  ordinances  are  worthless 
and  duties  are  bondage.  That  which  determines  a  s[)ecific 
ablution  to  be  Christian  baptism,  which  impresses  upon  the 
matter  what  may  be  styled  the  sacramental  form,  and  which, 
consequently,  constitutes  its  essence  as  a  sacrament,  is  the 
relation  which  it  bears  to  the  covenant  of  God's  unchanging 
mercy.  To  deny  that  relation,  though  all  the  outward 
appearances  may  be  retained,  is  to  abolish  the  sacrament. 
To  tamper  with  the  essence  of  an  ordinance  is  to  tamper 
with  its  life.  As  the  constitution  of  this  relation,  Avhatever 
it  may  be,  depends  exclusively  upon  the  authority  of 
Christ,  it  is  competent  to  Him  alone  to  define  the  circum- 
stances under  which  it  may  be  justly  conceived  to  exist, 
to  specify  the  conditions  upon  which  its  actual  institution 
depends.  For  aught  Ave  know,  He  might  have  rendered 
every  circumstance  of  personal  ablution,  or  of  eating  and 
drinking,  on  the  part  of  believers,  a  sacramental  act.  But 
He  has  chosen  to  restrain  the  sacramental  relations  within 
certain  limits;  and  when  His  own  prescriptions  are  not  ob- 
served, no  power  of  man,  no  intention  of  ministers,  can 
impress  the  sacramental  form  upon  material  elements.  The 
purpose  of  a  family  to  convert  its  ordinary  meals  into 
memorials  of  the  Saviour's  passion,  coupled  with  the  fact 

if  ill  tlie  name  of  the  Trinity,  is  Christian  haptisin,  iniioss  administered 
with  tlie  ostensible  design  of  signifying,  sealing  and  ajiplying  the  benefits 
of  the  covenant  of  grace." — Princeton  Review,  July,  1845,  p.  448. 


298  THE   VALIDITY   OF    THE    BAPTISM 

that  they  are  despatched  with  the  usual  solemnities  of  the 
eucharistic  feast,  is  not  sufficient  to  make  them,  in  truth, 
the  supper  of  the  Lord.  The  emblems  of  His  broken  body 
and  shed  blood  are  not  made  thus  common  and  profane. 
If,  to  be  more  specific,  the  authority  to  administer  the 
sacraments  is  intrusted  exclusively  to  the  ministers  of  the 
AVord,  the  same  matter  employed,  in  the  same  way,  by  others, 
Avould  be  evidently  destitute  of  the  sacramental  form.  The 
relation  to  the  covenant  of  grace,  which  depends  upon  the 
institution  of  Christ,  could  not  be  justly  apprehended  as 
subsisting,  and  the  promises  attached  to  the  due  celebration 
of  the  ordinance  could  not  be  legitimately  expected  to  take 
eifect. 

He,  therefore,  that  would  undertake  to  prove  that  the 
Romish  ceremony  possesses  the  form  or  the  essential  elements 
of  Christian  baptism  must  not  content  himself  with  shQW- 
ing  that  Rome  baptizes  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity.  He 
must  prove,  besides,  that  slie  inculcates  just  views  concern- 
ing the  nature  of  the  relationship  which  the  outward  wash- 
ing sustains  to  the  covenant  of  grace ;  that  her  conceptions 
of  the  covenant  itself,  that  to  which  the  ablution  has  refer- 
ence, are  substantially  correct;  and  that  she  employs  the 
outward  elements  in  conformity  with  the  conditions  pre- 
scribed by  the  Author  of  the  sacrament.  If  she  is  funda- 
mentally unsound  upon  any  of  these  points,  slie  abolishes 
the  essence  of  the  ordinance,  she  destroys  its  form.  She 
may,  for  instance,  be  as  orthodox  as  Princeton  represents 
her  to  be  in  regard  to  the  personal  and  official  relations  of 
the  Trinity;^  she  may  teach  the  truth  in  regard  to  the 
scheme  of  redemption ;  and  yet  if  her  baptism  bears  a  dif- 
ferent kind  of  relationship  to  the  covenant  of  grace  from 
that  instituted  by  the  Redeemer,  it  is  evident  that  it  must 
be  a  different  thing.     If,  on  the  other  hand,  she  is  sound  as 

1  "There  is  not  a  church  on  earth  which  teaches  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  more  accurately,  thoroughly  or  minutely,  according  to  the  ortho- 
doxy of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  churches,  than  the  Church  of  Rome. 
The  personal  and  official  relations  of  the  adorable  Trinity  arc  also  ]ire- 
served." — Princeton  Review,  July,  1845,  p.  450. 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  299 

to  the  nature  of  tlu'  rclationsliii),  and  yet  corrupt  as  to  the 
object  to  which  the  sacrament  refers/  her  baptism  is  only 
analogous  to  Christian  baptism,  and  therefore  cannot  be 
tlie  same.  The  rehitions  are  similar,  but  the  thinjjs  related 
are  diiferent.  If,  again,  she  holds  to  the  truth,  botii  as  it 
respects  the  relationship  itself  and  the  things  related,  and 
yet  does  not  administer  her  ordinance  according  to  the  con- 
ditions on  which  the  sacramental  form  may  be  expected  to 
take  place,  she  washes,  indeed,  but  not  sacramental ly ;  the 
authority  of  Christ  is  wanting.  She  administers  no  baptism. 
If  to  be  unsound  in  any  one  of  these  points  makes  void  a 
sacrament,  Avhat  shall  be  said  when  there  is  unsoundness  in 
all  ^  Such  an  ordinance  is  trebly  void.  And  that  this  is 
the  case  with  Romish  baptism,  I  think  will  be  made  to  ap- 
pear when  the  arguments  of  the  Reviewer — the  strongest, 
perhaps,  that  can  be  presented  to  show  that  it  possesses  the 
form  or  retains  the  essence  of  the  Christian  institute — sliall 
have  been  duly  weighed. 

1.  First,  then,  does  Rome  teach  the  truth  in  regard  to 
the  nature  of  the  relationship  involved  in  a  sacrament? 
The  answer  to  this  question  will  depend  upon  the  answer 
to  the  previous  question,  what  the  nature  of  the  relationship 
is.  How  much  soever  they  have  differed  upon  other  points, 
Protestant  divines  have  generally  agreed  that  one  prime 
office  assigned  to  the  sacraments  is  to  represent  to  the  eye, 
as  preaching  unfolds  to  the  ear,  Christ  as  the  substance  of 
the  new  covenant.  They  are  sic/ns  which  teach  by  analogy. 
As  water  cleanses  the  body,  so  the  blood  of  the  Redeemer 
purges  the  conscience  and  the  Spirit  of  the  Redeemer  ])uri- 
fies  the  heart.  As  bread  and  wine  constitute  important 
articles  of  food,  and  administer  strength  to  our  feeble  frame, 
so  the  atonement  of  Christ  is  the  food  of  the  spiritual  man, 
and  the  source  of  all  his  activity  and  vigour."     This  anal- 

1"  There  can  be  no  baptism  where  the  essence  of  Christianity  is  not 
preserved." — Burnet,  XXXIX.  Articles,  art.  xix.,  p.  242,  London  edition 
of  1S37. 

'  "The  signiiication  and  substance  is  to  sliow  us  liow  we  arc  led  with 
the  bodv  of  Christ — that  Ls,  that  like  as  material  lircad  fccdctii  our  body, 


300  THE   VALIDITY    OF   THE    BAPTISM 

ogy  is  what  Augustine  meant  when  he  said,  "  If  sacraments 
had  not  a  certain  likeness  and  representation  of  the  things 
whereof  they  be  sacraments,  then  indeed  they  were  no  sac- 
raments."^ The  things  themselves  unquestionably  are  not 
similar.  There  is  no  likeness  between  the  water  and  the 
Spirit,  between  bread  and  wine  and  the  death  of  Jesus,  but 
there  .'is  a  resemblance  in  their  relations.  Water  performs  a 
similar  office  for  the  flesh  to  that  which  the  blood  of  Christ 
performs  for  the  soul.  Bread  and  wine  sustain  a  relation  to 
our  natural  groAvth  similar  to  that  which  faith  in  Christ 
bears  to  our  spiritual  health.  It  is  obvious  that,  regarded 
simply  as  signs  instituted  by  the  authority  of  Christ,  the  sac- 
raments are  happily  adapted  to  confirm  our  faith  in  the  truth 
and  reality  of  the  Divine  promises.  They  place  before  us 
in  a  different  form  and  under  a  different  aspect,  in  a  form 
and  aspect  adapted  to  our  animal  and  corjjoreal  nature,  the 
same  grounds  and  object  of  faith  which  the  Word  presents 
to  the  understanding.  They  do  not  render  the  promises  of 
the  covenant,  in  themselves  considered,  more  sure  or  credi- 
ble, but  they  help  us,  by  images  addressed  to  the  senses,  in 
apprehending  what  might  otherwise  be  too  refined  for  our 
gross  perceptions.^     They  are  a  double  preaching  of  the 

so  the  body  of  Christ  nailed  on  the  cross,  embraced  and  eaten  by  faith, 
feedeth  the  soul.  The  like  representation  is  also  made  in  the  sacrament 
of  baptism,  that  as  our  body  is  washed  clean  with  water,  so  our  soul  is 
washed  clean  with  Christ's  blood." — Jewell,  Defence  of  the  Apology,  Part 
ii.,  chap.  X.,  Divis.  i. 

^  Quoted  by  Jewell,  ibidem. 

2  Hence  Calvin  very  justly  observes:  "And  as  we  are  corporeal, 
always  creeping  on  the  ground,  cleaving  to  terrestrial  and  carnal  objects, 
and  incapable  of  understanding  or  conceiving  of  anything  of  a  spiritual 
nature,  our  merciful  Lord,  in  His  infinite  indulgence,  accommodates  Him- 
self to  our  capacity,  condescending  to  lead  us  to  Himself  even  by  these 
earthly  elements,  and  in  the  flesh  itself  to  present  to  us  a  mirror  of  spirit- 
ual blessings.  'For  if  we  were  incorporeal,'  as  Chrysostom  says,  'He 
would  have  given  us  these  things  pure  and  incorporeal.  Now,  because 
we  have  souls  enclosed  in  bodies.  He  gives  us  spiritual  things  under  visi- 
ble emblems ;  not  because  there  are  such  qualities  in  the  nature  of  the 
things  presented  to  us  in  the  sacraments,  but  because  they  have  been  des- 
ignated by  God  to  this  signification.' " — Institutes,  B.  iv.,  c.  xiv.,  sec.  3. 


OF   THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  301 

same  Gospel,  and  confirm  the  A\^or(l  just  as  an  additional 
witness  establishes  a  fact.  They  arc,  in  short,  visible  prom- 
ises, Avhich  we  cannot  contemplate  in  their  true  cliaracter 
without  an  increased  conviction  of  the  truth  and  faithfulness 
of  God.  But  in  addition  to  this,  God  may  be  regarded  as 
declaring  through  them  to  worthy  recipients  that  just  as 
certainly  as  water  purifies  the  body,  or  as  bread  and  wine 
sustain  it,  just  so  certainly  shall  their  consciences  be  purged 
from  dead  works,  and  their  spiritual  strength  rene^ved, 
through  the  blood  of  the  Eedeemer.  The  certainty  of  the 
material  phenomena,  which  is  a  matter  of  daily  experience, 
is  made  the  pledge  of  an  equal  certainty  in  the  analogous 
sjiiritual  things.  It  is  in  this  way,  I  conceive,  that  the  sac- 
raments are  seals  of  the  covenant.  They  not  only  rtpreseni 
its  blessings,  are  not  only  an  authorized  proclamation  of  its 
promises  addressed  to  the  eye,  but  contain,  at  the  same  time, 
a  solemn  assurance  that  to  those  who  rightly  apprehend  the 
signs  the  spiritual  good  shall  be  as  certain  as  the  natural 
consequences  by  which  it  is  illustrated — that  the  connection 
between  faith  and  salvation  is  as  indissoluble  as  between 
washing  and  external  purity,  eating  and  physical  strength. 

Is  this  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome?  Does  she 
regard  her  sacraments  as  instituted  signs  of  spiritual  things 
or  as  visible  pledges  of  the  faithfulness  of  God  in  the  new 
and  everlasting  covenant?  If  so,  she  has  been  most  griev- 
ously slandered  by  the  most  distinguished  Protestant 
divines,  and  the  Princeton  Review  is  the  only  work,  so  far 
as  I  know,  of  any  merit,  which  has  ventured  to  assert  that 
her  doctrine  on  this  subject  is  precisely  the  same  with  that 
of  the  Reformed  Church.  It  is,  indeed,  admitted  that  there 
is  a  difference  between  Papists  and  Protestants  as  to  the 
mode^  in  whicli  the  design  of  baptism  is  accomi)lished. 
But  did  it  not  occur  to  the  Reviewer  that  there  could  be  no 
^  "  The  great  difference  between  Protestants  and  Romanists  relates  not 
to  the  design  of  the  ordinance,  but  to  the  mode  and  certainty  witli  which 
that  design  is  accomplished,  and  the  conditions  attached  to  it.  In  other 
words,  the  difference  relates  to  the  efficacy  and  not  to  the  design  of  the 
ordinance." — Princeton  Review,  July,  1845,  p.  451. 


302  THE    VALIDITY   OF   THE    BAPTISM 

difference  upon  this  point  if  tliere  were  a  perfect  agreement 
as  to  the  nature  of  that  relation  which  baptism  sustains  to 
the  covenant  of  grace?  If  ^ome  looked  upon  the  sacra- 
ments in  the  same  light  with  ourselves,  as  only  signs  and 
seals,  and  nothing  more  than  signs  and  seals,  though  she 
might  have  disputed  whether  the  benefits  which  they  re- 
present are,  in  every  instance  in  which  no  serious  obstruc- 
tion exists,  actually  conveyed,  the  question  as  to  their 
inherent  efficacy  never  could  have  been  raised.  She  would 
have  taught  their  recipients,  as  we  do,  to  look  beyond  the 
visible  symbols  to  the  personal  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
to  render  them  effectual.  As  well  might  she  have  expected 
her  children  to  become  men  in  understanding  by  reading 
books  in  an  unknown  tongue,  as  have  directed  them  to  seek 
for  grace  in  signs  and  seals,  without  any  reference  to  the 
things  represented.  As  it  is  the  ideas  which  words  suggest 
that  constitute  knowledge,  so  it  is  Christ's  words  and  His 
benefits  that  constitute  the  value  of  the  sacraments ;  and 
they  cannot  be  used  with  any  just  conception  of  their  real 
nature  without  leading  the  soul  directly  to  Him.  Any 
theory  of  their  office  which  even  proposes  the  temptation 
to  stop  at  themselves  is  utterly  destructive  of  their  true 
design.  The  questions  which  have  been  agitated  with  so 
much  zeal  among  the  Popish  theologians,  whether  the  con- 
secration of  a  priest  imparts  a  mystic  power  to  the  external 
symbols,  enabling  them  to  produce  effects  which,  independ- 
ently of  his  benediction,  they  could  not  accomplish  ;  whether 
his  intention  to  bestow  this  magical  virtue  is  absolutely 
essential  to  its  actual  communication ;  whether  the  appro- 
priate results  of  the  ordinances  are  secured  ex  opere  opcrantis 
or  ex  opere  operato,  or  by  both  conjointly, — questions  of  this 
sort,  which  have  been  the  fruitful  themes  of  so  much  discus- 
sion among  the  sainted  doctors  of  Rome,  are  too  obviously 
absurd  to  be  asked  upon  the  Protestant  hypothesis.  And 
yet  Princeton  tells  us  that  Rome  and  ourselves  are  precisely 
agreed  upon  the  nature  of  the  sacraments ;  ^  that  she,  as  we 
^  "Then  as  to  the  third  essential  part  of  the  ordinance,  the  design,  in 


OF   THE   CHURCH    OF    ROME.  303 

do,  makes  them  signs  and  seals  of  the  new  covenant,  and 
consequently  fixes  the  hopes  of  her  children  not  upon  them, 
but  upon  the  glorious  Object  whom  they  represent.  So 
thought  not  Calvin,^  who  inveighs  so  eloquently  against  the 
"  pestilent  and  fatal  nature  of  the  opinion  "  which  he  attri- 
butes to  the  Sophistical  schools,  and  declares,  in  his  cele- 
brated Tract  concerning  the  necessity  of  reforming  the 
Church,  to  have  been  universal  before  the  Reformation,'^ 
"that  the  sacraments  of  the  New  Law,  or  those  now  used 
in  the  Christian  Church,  justify  and  confer  grace,  provided 
we  do  not  obstruct  their  operation  by  any  mortal  sin."  So 
thought  not  Turrettin,^  who  evidently  treats  it  as  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Papists,  that  the  sacraments  are  not  signs  and 
seals  of  the  everlasting  covenant,  but  true,  proper,  physical 
causes  of  the  grace  they  are   said  to  represent.     This  error 

this  also  their  [Komish]  baptism  agrees  with  that  of  Protestants.  Ac- 
cording to  our  standards,  the  design  of  the  sacrament  is  to  signify,  seal 
and  apply  to  believers  the  benefits  of  the  new  covenant.  Tliis  is  the 
precise  doctrine  of  the  Komanists,  so  far  as  this." — Princeton  Review, 
July,  18-15,  p.  450. 

'  Institutes,  B.  iv.,  c.  xiv.,  sec.  14. 

'  "  Besides,  the  consecration  both  of  baptism  and  of  the  mass  differs  in 
no  respect  whatever  from  magical  incantation.  For  by  breathings  and 
whispering  and  unintelligible  sounds  they  think  they  work  mysteries. 
....  The  first  thing  we  complain  of  here  is,  that  the  people  are  enter- 
tained with  showy  ceremonies,  while  not  a  word  is  said  of  their  signifi- 
cancy  and  truth.  For  there  is  no  use  in  the  sacraments  unless  the  thing 
which  the  sign  visibly  represents  is  explained  in  accordance  with  the  Word 
of  God.  Therefore,  when  the  people  are  presented  with  notliing  but 
empty  figures  with  which  to  feed  the  eye,  while  they  hear  no  doctrine 
Aviiich  might  direct  them  to  the  proper  end,  they  look  no  farther  than  the 
external  act.  Hence  that  most  pestilential  superstition  under  which,  as  if 
the  sacraments  alone  were  sufficient  for  salvation,  without  feeling  any 
solicitude  about  faith,  or  repentance,  or  even  Christ  himself,  they  fasten 
upon  the  sign  instead  of  the  thing  signified  by  it.  And  indeed  not  only 
among  the  rude  vulgar,  but  in  the  schools  also,  the  impious  dogma  every- 
where obtained,  that  the  sacraments  were  eflTectual  themselves,  if  not  ob- 
structed in  their  operation  by  mortal  sin ;  as  if  the  sacraments  had  been 
given  for  any  other  end  or  use  than  to  lead  us  by  the  hand  to  Christ." — 
Calvin's  Tracts,  vol.  i.,  pp.  138,  139,  as  published  by  Calvin  Translation 
Society.     See  also  pp.  16(5  and  194. 

'  Turrettin,  Instit.  Theo.,  vol.  iii.,  p.  404,  Loc.  xix.,  Qu.  viii.,  g  3. 


304  THE    VALIDITY    OF   THE    BAPTISM 

concerniug  the  inherent  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  Pictet^ 
also  declares  to  be  contrary  to  their  nature.  Owen  ^  felt  that 
there  was  a  vital  controversy  betwixt  us  and  Rome  on  this 
point  when  he  denounced  Popish  baptism  as  a  species  of 
idolatry.  It  is  impossible  to  read  the  Reformed  confessions, 
and  the  apologies  which  the  Reformers  made  for  them, 
Avithout  being  impressed  with  the  fact  that  their  authors 
laboured  under  a  deep  conviction  that  the  minds  of  the 
people  were  seduced,  by  the  teachings  of  Rome,  with  dan- 
gerous and  fatal  error  on  the  very  essence  of  the  sacraments, 
the  nature  of  their  relation  to  the  covenant  of  grace,  the 
precise  office  they  discharge  under  the  dispensation  of  the 
Gospel.  This  was,  in  fact,  a  standing  topic  of  controversy 
between  the  two  parties.  Rome  represented  the  new  doc- 
trines concerning  gratuitous  justification  and  the  work  of 
the  Spirit  as  derogatory  to  the  dignity  and  value  of  the 
sacraments,  and  artfully  turned  the  tide  of  prejudice,  grow- 
ing out  of  the  old  associations  of  mystery  and  awe  with 
which  the  people  had  been  accustomed  to  look  upon  the 
consecrated  symbols,  against  the  restorers  of  the  Church. 
The  cry  everlastingly  was,  "  You  have  robbed  the  sacra- 
ments of  their  glory.  You  have  degraded  them  into  empty 
shoios.^  You  have  introduced  your  new-fangled  doctrines 
of  faith  and  the  Spirit  in  their  place."  These  and  similar 
accusations  were  continually  alleged  against  the  Reformers 
by  the  Pa])ists,  showing  that  there  was  a  radical  difference 
between  them  as  to  the  design  of  the  sacraments.  Rome 
felt  that  one  of  her  strongest  holds  upon  the  people  was 
their  attachment  to  these  mysteries  of  her  faith,  and  hence 
she  was  anxious,  as  much  as  possible,  to  make  the  sacra- 
ments the  seat  of  the  war.  While  the  Papists  charged  the 
Reformers  with  prostituting  these  solemn  and  august  cere- 
monies into  Avorthless  signs,  the  Protestants  retorted  upon 

1  Pictet,  Theol.  Chret.,  L.  xv.,  c.  4. 

^  Owen's  Works,  vol.  xvi.,  p.  95 :  Sermon  on  the  Chamber  of  Imagery. 
^  "You  make  Christ's  sacraments,"  said  Harding  against  Jewell,  "to  be 
only  shows." — Richmond's  British  Reformers,  vol.  vii.,  p.  G93. 


OF   THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  305 

Rome  that  she  had  converted  thoin  into  charms,  and  had 
invested  creatures  of  dust  and  earth,  the  beggarly  elements 
of  this  world,  with  the  high  prerogatives  of  God.  The 
question  was  not  so  much  about  the  mode  of  operation,  as 
Princeton  insinuates,  but  about  the  ar/ent  that  operated;  it 
was  a  question  whether  the  sacraments  themselves  conferred 
grace,  or  whether  God  the  Holy  Spirit  conferred  it,  employ- 
ing them  simply  as  means  which  had  no  intrinsic  power  to 
do  the  work.  It  was  a  question  whether  the  sacraments 
were  really  signs  or  evident  agents ;  and  if  this  be  not  a 
question  concerning  their  nature,  it  would  be  hard  to  raise 
one  that  is.  If  the  impression  of  the  Reformers  was  right, 
that  Rome  exalted  the  sacraments  into  true  and  proper 
causes  of  grace,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that,  whatever  she 
may  have  professed  in  words,  she  did  in  fact  deny  them  to 
be  s/^?is,  and  consequently  changed  their  relations  to  the 
covenant  of  grace,  and  made  them  essentially  diiferent  things 
from  what  Christ  had  appointed.  It  is  a  matter  of  no  sort 
of  consequence  that  the  Reformers  themselves  failed  to 
deduce  this  inference.  The  full  application  of  a  principle 
is  not  always  perceived  at  once,  and  the  soundness  of  a 
conclusion  depends  upon  the  truth  of  the  premises  and  the 
rigour  of  the  reasoning,  and  not  upon  human  authority. 
If  the  essence  of  the  sacraments  is  determined  by  their 
relation  to  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  that  relation  consists 
in  their  being  signs  and  seals  of  its  blessings,  then  whoever 
denies  the  reality  of  the  signs,  or  teaches  doctrines  incon- 
sistent with  it,  evidently  destroys  the  very  being  of  the 
sacraments,  and  what  he  presents  under  their  names,  whether 
charms  or  magic  or  physical  causes  of  grace,  are  an  impious 
and  blasphemous  substitution.  This  is  precisely  what  Rome 
does.  "While  she  retains  the  ancient  definitions,  and  uses 
the  expressions  signs  and  seals,  she  vacates  their  meaning 
by  giving  such  a  view  of  the  actual  offices  they  discharge 
in  the  economy  of  redemption  as  to  make  signs  no  more 
signs,  seals  no  more  seals.  They  cease  to  bo,  in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  the  phrase,  means  of  grace,  and  become  hues  of 
Vol.  hi.— 20 


306  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

grace.  She  teaches  a  mechanical  theory  of  salvation,  calcu- 
lated at  once  to  exalt  her  priests  and  to  degrade  God,  and 
fritters  down  the  personality  of  the  ever-glorious  Spirit  into 
the  mere  nexus  which  connects  a  cause  with  its  eiFect,  a  law 
with  its  results.  She  teaches  men,  accordingly,  to  rely  upon 
the  sacraments  and  not  upon  Christ,  to  stop  at  the  external 
act — as  if  water,  bread  and  wine  were  our  Saviours — in- 
stead of  looking  to  Him  in  whom  all  the  truths  of  the  Gospel 
centre  and  terminate ;  an  error  which  could  not  be  com- 
mitted if  she  held  the  sacraments  to  be  real  signs.  These 
statements  I  shall  endeavour  to  make  good. 

The  official  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  clearly  is  that 
the  sacraments  confer  the  grace  which  they  signify  ex  opere 
operato}  If  it  should  be  conceded,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment, that  Luther,  Melancthon,  Calvin  and  Zuingle  mis- 
took the  meaning  of  this  anomalous  phrase,  and  that  the 
cautious  definitions  of  Bellarmine  and  Dens  contain  the  true 
explanation  of  the  subject,  still  the  conclusion  will  seem  to 
be  inevitable  that  the  sacraments  produce  their  spiritual 
effects  either  in  the  way  of  physical  causes,  or  of  mechanical 
instruments.  Both  hypotheses  are  inconsistent  with  the 
theory  of  signs.  It  would  be  obviously  absurd  to  say  that 
fire  is  a  symbol  of  heat,  or  that  the  combined  forces  which 
keep  the  planets  in  their  paths  are  signs  of  the  elliptical  or- 
bits they  describe,  or  that  the  screw,  the  lever,  and  the 
wedge  represent  the  effects  they  respectively  produce.  The 
relation  of  a  cause  to  its  effect,  or  of  a  machine  to  the  phe- 
nomena of  motion,  is  widely  different  from  that  of  a  sign  to 
the  thing  it  denotes.     According  to  Bellarmine,  ==  to  confer 

1  Si  quis  dixerit,  per  ipsa  novse  legis  Sacramenta  ex  opere  opersito  non 
conferri  gratiam,  sed  solam  fidem  divinse  promissionis  ad  gratiam  conse- 
quendam  sufficere,  anathema  sit.     Trident.  Cone,  Sessio  vii.,  Can.  viii.^ 

2  Igitur  ut  intelligamus,  quid  sit  opus  operatum,  notandum  est,  in  jus- 
tificatione,  quam  recipit  aliquis,  dum  percipit  Sacramenta,  multa  con- 
currere ;  nimirum,  ex  parte  Dei,  voluntatem  utendi  ilia  re  sensibili ;  ex 
parte  Christi,  passionem  ejus ;  ex  parte  ministri,  potestatem,  voluntatem, 
probitatem;  ex  parte  suscipientis,  voluntatem,  fidem  et  pcenitentiam ;  den- 
ique  ex  parte  Sacramenti,  ipsam  actionem  extcrnam,  qua?  consurgit  ex 
debita  applicatione  formse  et  materia^     Ccterum  ex  his  omnibus  id,  quod 


OF   TUE    CHURCH    OF    lUniE.  307 

grace  ex  opere  operato  is  to  confer  grace  by  virtue  of  the 
sacramental  action  itself,  instituted  of  God  for  this  very 
purpose.  The  effect  of  the  ordinance  does  not  depend  either 
upon  the  merit  of  him  who  receives  or  of  him  who  dispenses 
it,  but  upon  the  fact  of  its  due  administration.  Though  the 
authority  of  God  which  institutes  the  rite,  the  death  of 
Christ  which  is  the  ultimate  meritorious  ground  of  grace, 
the  intention  of  the  minister  which  consecrates  the  elements, 
and  the  dispositions  of  the  recipient  which  remove  obstacles 
from  his  mind,  all  concur  in  the  production  of  the  result, 
yet  that  which  immediately  and  actively  secures  the  justifi- 
cation of  the  sinner  is  the  external  action  which  constitutes 
the  sacrament.  This,  and  this  alone,  however  other  things 
may  be  subsidiary,  is,  according  to  the  appointment  of  G(jd, 

active,  et  proxime,  atque  instrumentaliter  efficit  gratiani  jiistificationis,  est 
sola  actio  ilia  externa,  quse  Sacramentum  dicitur,  et  haec  vocatur  opus 
operatum,  accipiendo  passive  (operatum)  ita  ut  idem  sit  Sacramentum 
conferre  gratiam  ex  opere  operato,  quod  conferre  gratiam  ex  vi  ipsius  ac- 
tionis  Sacramentalis  a  Deo  ad  hoc  institutte,  non  ex  merito  agentis,  vd 
suscipientis:  quod  S.  Augustinus  lib.  4,  de  Baptismo,  ca.  24,  expressit  illis 
verbis :  Ipsum  per  seipsum  Sacramentum  multum  valet. '  Nam  voluntas  Dei, 
quae  sacramento  utitur,  concurrit  quidem  active,  sed  est  causa  principalis. 
Passio  Chi-Lsti  concurrit,  sed  est  causa  meritoria,  non  autem  eflectiva,  cum 
non  sit  actu,  sed  pr?eterierit,  licet  moneat  objective  in  mente  Dei.  Potes- 
tas,  et  voluntas  ministri  concurrunt  necessario,  sed  sunt  causae  remotje; 
requiruntur  enim  ad  efficiendam  ipsara  actionem  Sacramentalem,  quae 
postea  immediate  operatur.  Probitas  ministri  requiritur,  ut  ipse  minister 
non  peccet  Sacramenta  ministrando,  non  tamen  ipsa  est  causa  gratite  in 
suscipiente,  nee  juvat  suscipientem  per  modum  Sacramenti,  sed  solum  per 
modum  impetrationis  et  exempli.  Voluntas,  fides,  et  poenitentia  in  sus- 
cipiente adulto  necessariS  requiruntur,  ut  dispositiones  ex  parte  subjecti, 
non  ut  caussae  activae :  non  enim  fides  et  poenitentia  efiiciunt  gratiam  Sac- 
ramentalem, neque  dant  efficaciam  Sacramentis,  sed  solum  tollunt  obsta- 
cula,  quae  impedirent  ne  Sacramenta  suam  efficaciam  exercoro  pos.-e-nt ; 
unde  in  pueris,  ubi  non  requiritur  dispositio,  sine  his  rebus  sit  justificatio. 
Exemplum  esse  potest  in  re  naturali.  Si  ad  ligna  comburenda,  priiaum 
exsiccarentur  ligna,  deinde  excutereter  ignis  ex  silice,  tum  applicaretur 
ignis  ligno,  et  sic  tandem  fieret  combustio ;  nemo  diceret,  caussam  imrae- 
diatam  combustionis  esse  siccitatem,  aut  excussionem  ignis  ex  silice,  aut 
applicationem  ignis  ad  ligna,  sed  solum  igneni,  ut  caussam  primariam,  et 
solum  calorem,  seu  calefactioneru,  ut  caussam  instrumentalem.  Dc  Sac- 
ramentis, Lib.  ii.,  cap.  1. 


308  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

the  immediate  instrument  in  effecting,  when  not  prevented 
by  obstacles  or  hindrances,  the  grace  which  is  signified. 
How  this  is  done  is  said  to  be  an  open  question  in  the 
Church  of  Rome;^  but  the  different  opinions  which  have 
divided  her  divines  and  distracted  her  Schoolmen  may  be 
embraced  under  the  general  theories  of  moral  power  and 
physical  causation.^  The  patrons  of  the  former,  slow  to 
comprehend  how  material  elements  can  achieve  a  spiritual 
result,  ascribe  the  efficiency  not  to  the  sacraments  them- 
selves, but  to  the  agency  of  God.  They  suppose  that  He 
has  pledged  His  omnipotence,  in  every  instance  of  their  due 
administration,  to  impart  the  benefits  which  the  matter 
represents.  He  has  inseparably  connected  the  effectual 
working  of  His  ovn\  power  with  the  external  action.  Grace 
always  accompanies  the  rite;  their  union  is  fixed  by  Divine 
appointment,  cemented  by  Divine  energy,  and  as  indissolu- 

^  Secundo  notandum,  non  esse  controversiam  de  modo  quo  Sacramenta 
sint  caussse,  id  est,  an  physice  attingendo  effectum,  an  moraliter  tantnm ; 
et  rursum  si  physic^,  an  per  aliqiiam  qualitatem  inliserentem,  an  per 
solam  Dei  motionem ;  ista  enim  ad  questionem  fidei  non  pertinent :  sed 
solum  generatim,  an  Sacramenta  sint  verse  et  propria  caussse  instnimen- 
tales  justificationis,  ut  vere  ex  eo  quod  quis  baptizatur,  sequatur,  ut  justi- 
ficetur.  Nam  in  hoc  conveniunt  omnes  Catholici,  ut  Lutherus  ipse  fatetur, 
in  lib.  de  captiv.  Babyl.  cap.  de  Baptismo :  Arbitrati,  inquit,  mnt  quam 
plurimi  esse  aliquam  virtutem  occultam  spiritualem  in  verbo,  et  aqiui,  qjtce  ope- 
retur  in  anima  recipient  is  gratiam  Dei.  His  alii  contradicentes  staluunt, 
nihil  esse  virtutis  in  Sacramentis,  sed  gratiam  a  solo  Deo  dari,  quia  assistit  ex 
pacto  Sacramentis  a  se  institutis:  omnes  tamen  in  hoc  concedunt,  Sacramenta 
esse  efficacia  signa  gratice.     Ibid. 

Salva  autem  fide,  inter  Catholicos  disputatur,  an  Sacramenta  novae  legis 
conferant  suos  effectus  physicS,  an  tantum  moraliter.  Dens,  De  Sacram., 
vol.  v.,  No.  17,  p.  90. 

-  Quidam  tenent  causalitatem  physicam,  et  sese  explicant,  quod  Sacra- 
menta, tanquam  Divinse  Omnipotentise  instrumenta,  ver^  et  realiter  con- 
currant  ad  productionem  effectuum  in  anima,  per  virtutem  supernaturalem 
a  principali  agente  sibi  communicatam,  et  per  modum  actionis  transeuntis 
sibi  unitam.  Qui  vero  adstruunt  causalitatem  moralem  tantftm,  dicuut 
quidem  Sacramenta  non  esse  nuda  qusedam  signa,  nee  mere  talia,  quibus 
positis,  Deus  gratiam  infundat,  sed  esse  velut  chirographa  et  authentica 
monuraenta  pacti,  quo  Deus  se  quodammodo  obstrinxit,  ut  ad  praesentiam 
signorum  Sacramentalinm  gratiam  conferret  debite  suscipientibus.  Dens, 
Ibidem. 


OF   THE    CHURCH    OF    EOME.  309 

ble  in  the  experience  of  the  faithful  as  they  are  in  the  pur- 
pose of  the  Ahuighty.  This  theoiy,  though  not  so  gross 
and  palpably  absurd  as  the  other,  reduces  the  sacraments,  in 
their  relations  to  us,  to  the  category  of  machines — machines 
in  the  kingdom  of  God,  to  which  spiritual  phenomena  may 
be  ascribed,  just  as  truly  as  the  wheel,  the  pulley,  and  the 
wedge  are  mechanical  contrivances  for  bending  nature  to 
our  wills.  In  their  relations  to  God  they  would  seem  to  be 
somewhat  analogous  to  laws,  since  they  are  described  as 
stated  modes  of  Divine  operation,  and  may  evidently  be 
regarded  as  compendious  expressions  for  a  class  of  facts 
which  take  place  with  unvarying  uniformity.  In  the 
schools  of  philosophy  no  more  inherent  efficacy  is  attributed 
to  natural  laws  than  the  Romanists,  who  support  the  theory 
of  moral  power,  are  accustomed  to  bestow  on  the  operation 
of  the  sacraments.  It  is  God  in  each  case  who  acts,  and 
the  law  simply  declares  the  regularity  and  order  of  His  con- 
duct. But,  however  this  may  be,  to  resolve  the  connection 
between  outward  orduiances  and  spiritual  benefits  into  the 
fixed  uniformity  of  a  law  is  to  make  the  external  action,  in 
reference  to  men,  a  species  of  machine.  As  motion,  in  the 
last  analysis,  must  be  attributed  to  God,  those  mechanical 
instruments  which  are  adapted  to  its  laws  are  only  conti'iv- 
ances  for  availing  ourselves  of  His  power  to  compass  ends 
which  our  own  strength  is  inadequate  to  reach.  Experience, 
by  giving  us  the  laws  of  nature,  acquaints  us  with  the 
methods  of  the  Divine  administration.  And  mechanism 
consists  in  a  skilful  disposition  of  materials  with  reference 
to  these  laws,  so  as  to  make  them  subsidiary  to  the  purpose 
which  we  propose  to  achieve.  If,  accordingly,  there  be  a 
fixed  connection  between  the  due  dispensation  of  the  sacra- 
ments and  the  reception  of  grace,  we  can  avail  ourselves  of 
them  to  secure  spiritual  good  ^vith  as  much  certainty  and 
as  little  piety  as  we  can  depend  upon  the  wheel,  the  jiullcy, 
or  the  lever  to  raise  enormous  weights,  rely  upon  the  wedge 
to  break  the  stoutest  cohesion,  or  trust  to  the  screw  for  an 
immense  compression.     Tlio  c.xtcnial   action   is  a<1:i]tt('(l   to 


310  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

the  law  of  sacramental  union,  as  the  ordinary  mechanical 
powers  are  instruments  adjusted  to  the  laws  of  motion. 
Hence,  regeneration  is  effected,  in  flat  contradiction  to  the 
Scrijitures,  by  the  will  of  man,  and  justification  is  as  much 
our  own  work  as  the  erection  of  a  building  or  the  construc- 
tion of  a  monument.  We  can  use  the  instrument  which 
secures  it. 

The  other  theory  of  the  operation  of  the  sacraments  re- 
presents them  as  causes.  Its  advocates  seem  to  have  believed, 
in  opposition  to  the  prevailing  conclusions  of  modern  phil- 
osophy, that  what,  in  material  phenomena,  are  dignified 
with  this  appellation  are  possessed  of  a  latent  power  to 
accomplish  their  effects.  Regarding  the  invisible  nexus 
which  binds  events  in  this  relationship  together,  as  some- 
thing more  than  the  established  order  of  sequences  given 
by  experience,  they  were  led  to  ascribe  mysterious  efficacy 
to  the  cause  by  which  it  not  only  preceded  the  effect  with 
unvarying  uniformity,  but  actually  gave  it  existence.  They 
attributed  to  physical  facts  that  potency,  according  to  their 
measure,  which  our  instinctive  belief  of  causation  leads  us 
to  recognize  somewhere,  and  sound  philosophy  centres  in 
God.  The  sacraments,  accordingly,  are  represented,  by  the 
advocates  of  their  physical  efficacy,  as  invested  with  a  vir- 
tue, force  or  power  in  consequence  of  which  they  produce 
the  grace  they  are  said  to  signify.  This  theory  is  not  only 
the  most  common  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  seems  to  me 
to  be  the  only  one  strictly  accordant  with  the  views  of  Trent. 
The  sixth  Canon  of  the  Seventh  session  of  that  Council 
pronounces  its  usual  malediction  upon  those  who  shall  deny 
that  the  sacraments  of  the  Gospel  contain  the  grace  which 
they  signify,  or  that  they  conifer  that  grace  upon  those  who 
place  no  obstacles  in  the  way.^     But  whatever  may  be  said 

^  Si  quis  dixerit,  Sacramenta  novre  legis  non  continere  gratiam  quara 
significant,  aul  gratiam  ipsani  non  ponontibus  obicem  non  conferre,  quasi 
signa  tantum  externa  sint  accepta;  per  fidem  gratiae  vel  justitise,  et  notje 
qtipedam  Christians  professionis,  quibus  apud  homines  discernuntur  fideles 
ab  infidelibus,  anathema  sit.     Trident.  Con.,  Sess.  vii.,  can.  vi. 


OF    THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  311 

of  the  decrees  of  the  Council,  its  Catechism  seems  to  be 
clear  and  unambiguous.  Havino;  spoken  of  signs  which 
are  only  significant  and  monitory,  it  proceeds  to  observe^ 
that  "God  has  instituted  others  which  have  the  power,  not 
only  of  signifying,  hut  of  effecting,  and  in  this  class  must 
evidently  be  reckoned  the  sacraments  of  the  new  law.  They 
are  signs  divinely  prescribed,  not  invented  by  men,  which, 
we  certainly  believe,  contain  in  themselves  the  'power  of 
effecting  the  sacred  thing  [the  grace]  which  they  declare."  A 
sacrament  is  defined  to  be^  a  "thing  subjected  to  the  senses, 
which,  in  consequence  of  the  appointment  of  God,  possesses 
the  power,  not  only  of  signifying,  but  also  of  effecting,  holi- 
ness and  righteousness."  They  are  said  to  have  been  insti- 
tuted as  "remedies  and  medicines  for  restoring  and  defending 
the  health  of  the  soul,"  and  are  commended  as  pipes  which 
convey  the  merit  of  the  Saviour's  passion  to  the  consciences 
of  men.'*  What  language  can  be  stronger  than  that  which 
the  authors  of  the  Catechism  have  employed  in  treating 
of  the  first  effects  of  the  sacraments?*  "We  know,"  say 
they,  "  by  the  light  of  faith  " — and  all  true  Papists  must 
respond  Amen — "  that  the  power  of  the  omnipotent  God 

1  Alia  vero  Deus  instituit,  quse  non  significandi  modo  sed  efficiendi 
etiam  vim  haberent,  atqiie  in  hoc  posteriori  signorum  genere  sacramenta 
novffi  legis  nuraeranda  esse  liquido  apparet:  signa  enim  sunt  divinitiis 
tradita,  non  ab  hominibus  inventa,  quje  rei  cujuspiam  saera^,  quain  de- 
clarant, efficientiam  in  se  continere  certo  credimus.  Trident.  Catechism. 
Pars  ii.,  cap.  i.,  §  viii. 

2  Quare,  ut  explicatiils  quid  sacramentum  sit  declaretur,  docendnni  erit 
rem  esse  sensibus  subjectam,  quse  ex  Dei  institutione  sanctitatis,  et  justitise 
turn  significandse,  turn  efficiendae,  vim  habet.     Ibid.,  cap.  i.,  §  x. 

'  Tertia  causa  fuit,  ut  ilia  tanquam  remedia,  ut  scribit  sanctus  Anibro- 
sius,  atque  Evangclici  Samaritani  medicamenta  ad  animarum  sanitatem, 
vel  recuperandam,  vel  tuendam  prse-std  e.ssent.  Virtutem  enim,  quae  ex 
pa-ssione  Christi  manat,  hoc  est,  gratiam  quara  ille  nobis  in  ara  crucis 
meruit,  per  sacramenta,  quasi  per  alveum  quemdam,  in  nos  ipsos  derivari 
oportet,  aliter  vero  neraini  uUa  salutis  spes  reliqua  esse  poterit.  Ibid., 
cap.  i.,  ?  xiii. 

*  At  tidei  lumine  cognoscimus,  omnipotentis  Dei  virtutem  in  sacramentis 
in  esse,  ijua  id  efficiant,  quod  sua  vi  res  ipsae  naturales  prsestare  non  pos- 
sunt.     Ibid.,  cap.  i.,  §  xxvi. 


312  THE   VALIDITY   OF   THE   BAPTISM 

exists  in  the  sacraments,  and  tliey  can,  consequently,  effect 
that  which  natural  things,  by  their  own  energy,  cannot 
achieve." 

In  the  comparison  which  is  instituted  between  the  sacra- 
ments of  the  new  and  those  of  the  old  dispensation,  the 
pre-eminence  is  given  to  the  former,  in  consequence  of  pos- 
sessing what  the  others  did  not  possess,  the  ability  of  effect- 
ing that  which  their  matter  represents.^  The  latter  availed 
to  the  cleansing  of  the  flesh,  the  former  reach  the  impurities 
of  the  soul ;  the  latter  were  instituted  simply  as  signs  of 
blessings  to  be  afterward  conferred  by  the  ministry  of  the 
Gospel,  but  the  "  former,  flowing  from  the  side  of  Christ, 
who,  through  the  Eternal  Spirit,  offered  himself  without 
spot  unto  God,  purge  our  consciences  from  dead  works  to 
serve  the  living  God,  and  so  work,  through  the  power  of 
Christ's  blood,  that  grace  which  they  signify."  The  gen- 
eral current  of  this  phraseology  seems  to  be  incompatible 
with  any  hypothesis  but  that  of  physical  causation  ;  the 
same  sort  of  relationship  is  attributed  to  the  outward  matter 
and  the  inwftrd  grace  which  subsists  between  impulse  and 
motion,  fire  and  heat. 

This  view  of  the  subject  is  confirmed  by  the  prevailing 
tone  Avhich  the  Popish  theologians  adopt  in  discussing  the 
doctrine  of  the  sacraments.  "  Grace,"  says  Bellarmine,^  "  is 
the  effect  of  the  sacrament,  and  hence  is  contained  in  the 

'  Ex  iis  igitur  quae  de  priori  sacramentorum  effectu,  gratia  scilicet  justi- 
ficante,  demonstrata  sunt,  illud  etiam  plane  constat,  excellentiorem,  et 
prsestantiorem  vim  sacramentis  novse  legis  inesse,  quam  olim  veteris  legis 
sacramenta  habuerunt:  quae  ciim  infirma  essent,  egenaque  elementa, 
inquinatos  sanctificabant  ad  emundationem  carnis,  non  animae :  quare,  ut 
signa  tantura  earum  rerum  quae  ministeriis  nostris  efficiendae  essent,  in- 
stituta  sunt.  At  vero  sacramenta  novae  legis  ex  Christi  latere  manantia, 
qui  per  Spiritum  Sanctum  semetipsum  obtulit  immaculatum  Deo,  emun- 
dant  conscientiam  nostram  ab  operibus  mortuis,  ad  serviendum  Deo 
viventi,  atque  ita  earn  gratiam,  quam  signiticant,  Christi  sanguinis  viitute 
operantur.     Ibid.,  cap.  i.,  |  xxviii. 

*  Gratia  enim  effeetus  est  sacramenti,  proinde  in  sacramento  continetur, 
ut  quilibet  alius  effeetus  in  sua  caussa.  Bellarmine,  De  Sacramentis,  Lib. 
i.,  cap.  iv. 


OF   THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  313 

sacrament,  as  every  other  effect  is  contained  in  its  own 
caitee."  "  That  which  is  chiefly  and  essentially  signified,"  ' 
he  observes  again,  "  by  the  sacraments  of  the  new  law,  is 
only  justifying  grace.  For,  as  we  shall  subsequently  see, 
the  sacraments  of  the  new  law  eifect  that  which  they  signify. 
They  do  not,  however,  eflfect  the  passion  of  Christ  nor 
future  blessedness.  They  presuppose,  on  the  contrary.  His 
passion,  and  promise  future  blessedness ;  but  they  do,  prop- 
erly, import  justification."  In  discussing  the  question, 
whether  a  sacrament  can  be  logically  defined,  he  announces 
a  truth  which  seems  to  be  fatal  to  tliose  who,  like  the  Re- 
viewer, w^ould  inculcate  the  identity  of  Popish  and  Protest- 
ant views  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  sacraments.  "  A 
sacrament,  as  such,"  says  he,^  "  not  only  signifies,  it  also 
sanctifies.  But  to  signify  and  to  sanctify  belong  to  different 
categories,  the  one  being  embraced  under  that  of  relation, 
the  other  under  that  of  action."  "  It  is  more  proper,"  he 
states,  in  another  connection,^  "  to  a  sacrament  to  sanctify 
than  it  is  to  signify."  In  rebutting  Calvin's  account  of 
the  nature  of  the  sacraments,  he  does  not  scruple  to  assert  * 
that  "  they  are  efficacious  causes  of  grace  when  no  obstacles 
interpose."  His  critique  of  the  great  Reformer's  definition 
so  strikingly  illustrates  the  fundamental  difference  between 
Protestants  and   Romanists  on  this  whole    subject    that  I 

^  Est  autem  hoc  loco  notandum,  id  quod  praecipue  et  essentialiter  sigiii- 
ficatur  per  sacramentnm  novae  legis,  esse  solam  gratiam  justificaiiteni. 
Nam  ut  infra  dicemus,  sacramenta  nov£e  legis  efficiunt,  quod  siguificaut, 
at  non  efficiunt  passionera  Christi,  nee  vitani  beatam  sed  solam  justifica- 
tionem:  passionem  enim  prawupponiuit,  et  vitam  beatam  proniittunt, 
justificationem  autem  proprii-  adferunt.     Ibid.,  cap.  ix. 

*  Secundo,  sacramcntum,  ut  sacramentum,  non  solilm  significat,  sed 
etiam  sanctiiioat,  ut  Catliolici  omnes  decent  de  sacramentis  novie  legis. 
Ibid.,  cap.  X. 

'  Prima  propositio :  Ad  rationem  .sacramenti  in  gcnere  non  satis  est,  ut 
significet,  sed  requiritur  etiam,  ut  efficiat  sanctitatem  seu  sanctificationem : 
immo  magis  proprium  est  sacramenti  sanctificare,  quam  signifiiare.  Ibid., 
cap.  xii. 

*  Sacramenta  esse  causas  gratise  efficaces,  nisi  ponatur  obex.  Ibid.,  cap. 
xvi. 


314  THE    VALIDITY    OF   THE    BAPTISM 

hope  the  reader  will  excuse  me  for  extracting  the  part  which 
relates  to  the  sign.  Calvin  says  that  a  sacrament  is  "  an 
outward  sign,  by  which  the  Lord  seals  in  our  consciences 
the  promises  of  his  good-will  toward  us,  to  support  the 
weakness  of  our  faith ;  and  we,  on  our  part,  testify  our 
piety  toward  him ;  in  His  presence  and  that  of  angels,  as 
well  as  before  men."  "  This  whole  definition,"  says  Bellar- 
mine,^  "is  vicious,  as  will  evidently  appear  from  a  close  ex- 
amination of  it  word  by  word.  The  first  expression  is  an 
outward  sign.  This,  indeed,  is  absolutely  true,  but  not  in 
the  sense  in  which  Calvin  intends  it.  He  means  a  naked 
sign,  a  symbol  which  signifies  only,  but  effects  nothing. 
For  throughout  his  whole  definition  he  contemplates  no 
other  effects  of  the  sacraments  than  to  seal  the  promises  of 
God  and  to  testify  our  own  piety.  It  is  no  objection  to  this 
statement  that  he  asserts,  in  his  Antidote  to  the  Council  of 
Trent  (Sess.  7,  can.  5),  that  The  sacraments  are  instruments 
of  justification,  for  he  calls  them  instruments,  because  they 

^  His  explicatis  refellenda  est  htec  definitio :  tota  enim  est  vitiosa,  ut 
perspicuum  erit,  si  percurramus  singula  verba.  Primum  verbum  est, 
Symbolum  externum.  Quod  quidem  verum  est  absolute,  non  tamen  in  eo 
sensu,  quo  accipitur  a  Calvino.  Ille  enim  intelligit  esse  nudum  symbo- 
lum, id  est,  symbolum  quod  solum  significet,  non  autem  operetur  aliquid: 
nam  in  tota  definitione  non  ponit  alios  effectus  liujus  symboli,  nisi  obsig- 
nare  Dei  promissiones,  et  testificari  pietatem  nostram :  neque  obstat,  quod 
Calvinus  dicat  in  Antidoto  Concilii  "Tridentini,  Sess.  vii.,  can.  v. :  Sucra- 
vienta  esse  instrumenta  justificationis ;  nam  intelligit  esse  instrumenta,  quia 
excitant,  vel  alunt  fidem ;  idque  non  per  aliquam  efficientiam,  sed  mere 
objective.  Id  quod  explicat  clarissime  Theodorus  Beza,  in  lib.  De  summa 
rei  sacramentarise,  quest.  2,  cum  sic  ait :  Unde  efficacia  ilia  sacramenlorum  ? 
A  Spiritus  sancti  operatione  in  solidum,  non  autem  a  signis,  nisi  quatenus 
externis  illis  objectis  interiores  sensus  moventur.  Yitec  ille.  Qua  ratione 
certe  signa  etiam,  quae  in  foribus  publicorum  hospitiorum  pendent,  instru- 
menta dici  possunt  coenationis,  quia  movent  hominem,  ut  cogitet  in  ea 
domo  paratam  esse  mensam,  etc.  At  Scripturse  passim  docent,  sacramenta 
esse  res  quasdam  operantes,  nimirum  quae  mundent,  lavent,  saiictificent, 
justificent,  regenerent.  Joan.  iii. ;  1  Cor.  vi. ;  Eph.  v.,  ad  Tit.  iii. ;  Act.  xxii. 
Immo  nusquam  Scripturae  dicunt,  sacramenta  esse  testimonia  promis- 
sionum  Dei  et  nostrse  pietatis,  aut  certe  non  tam  expresse  hoc  dicunt, 
ut  id  quod  nos  asserimus,  nimirum  quod  sint  causae  justificationis.  Ibid., 
cap.  16. 


OF    THE    CHURCH   OF    ROME.  316 

excite  and  strcngtlieu  foith,  and  that  not  efficiently,  bnt 
only  objectively.  Beza  has  very  clearly  expressed  the  same 
idea  in  his  book  De  Sunima  Rei  Sacramentariae,  Question  2, 
where  he  says :  *  Whence  is  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  ? 
It  depends  entirely  upon  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  not  upon  the  signs,  except  so  far  as  the  outward  objects 
may  excite  inward  perceptions.'  Thus  Beza.  For  the  same 
reason,  the  signs  which  hang  on  the  doors  of  inns  might  be 
called  instruments  of  eating,  since  they  suggest  the  idea  of 
a  table  within.  The  Scriptures,  however,  everywhere  teach 
that  the  sacraments  are  operative,  inasmuch  as  they  cleanse, 
wash,  sanctify,  justify,  regenerate.  John,  chap,  iii.;  1  Cor. 
vi.;  Eph.  v.;  Tit.  iii.;  Acts  xxii.  Never  do  they  assert 
that  the  sacraments  are  testimonies  of  God's  promises  and 
of  our  piety ;  or,  at  least,  they  do  not  certainly  teach  this 
M'ith  as  much  directness  as  they  inculcate  the  doctrine  which 
we  have  asserted,  that  the  sacraments  are  causes  of  justifi- 
cation." The  point  most  oifensive  to  the  mind  of  Bellar- 
mine  in  the  doctrine  of  Protestants  was,  evidently,  that 
in  which  they  represent  the  effiect  of  the  sacraments  as  de- 
pending upon  the  Holy  Spirit  and  upon  the  truths  and  prom- 
ises which  they  address  to  faith.  He  regarded  the  external 
action  as  the  secret  of  their  power.  When  duly  adminis- 
tered, they  just  as  truly,  according  to  him,  confer  grace  as 
impulse  communicates  motion  or  fire  communicates  heat. 
They  were  causes  containing  their  eiFects,  not  figuratively, 
but  really  and  properly — instruments  producing  their  results 
by  immediate  and  direct  efficiency.  Precisely  to  the  same 
purport  is  the  doctrine  of  Dens.  "In  the  fourth  place,"  says 
he,^  "a  sacrament  is  a  sign,  efficacious  and  practical,  effect- 
ing that  which  it  signifies."  The  recipient  is  said  to  be 
passive  under  its  jDower,^  and  the  sacraments  are  represented 
as  truly  and  properly  the  causes  of  grace  to  those  who  do 

1  Quarto,  est  signnni  "  eflScax  et  practicum,"  scilicit  efRi'iciis  id,  quod 
significat. — Dens,  De  Sacrani.,  vol.  v.,  No.  iii.,  p.  68. 

^  Quia  subjectum  non  concurrit  active,  sed  tantdm  passivO.  Il)id.,  No.  iv., 
p.  70. 


316  THE   VALIDITY    OF   THE    BAPTISM 

not  interpose  obstacles^ — "they  contain  the  grace  causally 
and  instrumentally.  and  that  not  simply  as  they  are  signs 
of  it,  which  was  the  case  with  the  sacraments  of  the  old 
law,  but  as  instrumental  causes  from  which  it  may  be  ex- 
tracted.^ Harding,  the  Jesuit,  in  his  celebrated  controversy 
with  Jewell,^  says :  "  There  be  seven  sacraments,  which  do 
not  only  signify  a  holy  thing,  but  also  do  sanctify  and  make 
holy  those  to  whom  they  be  exhibited,  being  such  as,  by  insti- 
tution of  Christ,  contain  grace  in  them  and  power  to  sanc- 
tify." "The  sacraments  of  the  new  law,"  he  teaches  again,'* 
"work  the  thing  itself  that  they  signify,  through  virtue 
given  unto  them  by  God's  ordinance  to  special  effects  of 
grace."  "Sacraments  contain  grace,  after  such  manner  of 
speaking  as  we  say  potions  and  drinks  contain  health."  ^ 

The  theory  of  causation  is  kept  up  even  in  the  doctrine 
of  obstacles.  There  is  a  striking  analogy  betwixt  the  resist- 
ance which  is  offered  by  material  hindrances  to  the  action 
of  physical  causes,  and  that  of  the  obstacles  which,  accord- 
ing to  the  Romish  doctors,  defeat  the  operation  of  the  sacra- 
ments. What  is  technically  called  an  obstacle — I  allude 
not  to  those  essential  ones  arising  from  perverseness  of  will 
or  from  gross  hypocrisy,  which  render  void  the  sacrament, 
but  to  those  accidental  ones  which  do  not  invalidate,  but  only 
impede  the  efficacy  of  the  ordinance — what  is  technically 
called  an  obstacle  of  this  sort  is  either  some  disposition 
directly  repugnant  to  the  sanctifying  tendency  of  the  sacra- 
ment, or  the  want  of  such  a  state  of  mind  as  is  suited  to  its 
action.  There  must  be  some  congruity,  as  in  material  phe- 
nomena, between  the  tendencies  of  the  cause  and  that  upon 

'  An  Sacramenta  novae  legis  causent  Gratiam  ? 

Responsio  Fidei  contra  sectarios  est,  ea  vere  et  proprie  causare  Gratiam 
non  ponentibus  obicem,  non  tanquam  causas  principales  (hoc  enim  solius 
Dei  est),  sed  tanquam  instrumentales.     Ibid.,  No.  xvii.,  p.  89. 

*  Sed  quod  Gratiam  contineant  causaliter  et  instrumentaliter,  vel,  ut 
dicit  Steyaert,  quatenus  non  sunt  tantum  signa  Gratiae,  ut  ilia  veteris  Legis, 
sed  et  causae  instrumentales,  de  quibus  earn  depromere  liceat.  Ibid.,  No. 
xviii.,  p.  90. 

^  Richmond's  British  Reformers,  vol.  vii.,  p.  685. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  690.  5  Ibid.,  p.  686. 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  317 

which  they  are  expended.  Fire  has  a  tendency  to  burn,  but 
then  the  fuel  must  be  dry.  Motion  once  begun  has  a  tend- 
ency to  continue,  but  then  friction  and  resistance  must  be 
removed  ;  and  so  the  sacraments  are  fitted  to  sanctify,  but 
then  tlie  subject  must  be  adapted  to  their  action.^ 

Whatever  may  be  the  mode  in  which  the  sacraments 
operate,  whether  mechanical  or  efficient,  tlie  relation  in 
which  they  are  conceived  to  stand  to  the  covenant  of  grace 
is  essentially  different  from  that  represented  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. Instead  of  being  signs  and  seals  of  the  benefits 
of  redemption,  conducting  the  mind  beyond  themselves 
to  Jesus,  the  Author  and  Finisher  of  faith,  they  usurp  the 
office  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  undertake  to  accomplish  what 
He  alone  is  pledged  to  effect.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that 
the  only  Holy  Spirit  whom  Rome  practically  recognizes  is 
what  she  denominates  her  sacraments.  Her  whole  theory 
of  gi'ace  is  grossly  mechanical.  The  Tridentine  Catechism 
runs  the  parallel  between  natural  and  spiritual  life,  and 
shows  that  the  sacraments  are  to  the  latter  what  birth, 
growth,  nutriment  and  medicine  are  to  the  former.^     The 

1  Est  carentia — says  Dens,  defining  an  obstacle — dispositionis  neces- 
saria  ad  recipiendum  sacramenti  effectuni ;  sivc  est  defectus  aliciijus  non 
impediens  valorem  sacramenti,  sed  ejus  effectum  sen  collationem  Gratiae 
ob  indispositionera  suscipientis ;  ut  si  quis  in  afiectu  peccati  raortalis,  vel 
cum  ignorantia  necessariorum  necessitate  medii,  suscipit  aliquod  sacra- 
mentum,  praeter  Pcenitentiam. 

Quotupliciter  continget,  poni  obicem  accidentalera? 

Dnpliciter :  scilicit  per  obicem  sacramenti  positivum  seu  contrarium,  et 
per  obicem  negativum  seu  privativum. 

Obex  positivus  seu  contrarius  sacramenti  consistit  in  indispositione 
actual!  repugnante  infusioni  Gratise  sanctificantis. 

Talis  est  quodcumque  peccatum  actuale  mortale,  sive  cujus  actus 
vel  eflectus  in  suscipiente  sacramentnm  adliuc  moraliter  dici  potest  per- 
severare;  sive  quod  in  ipsa  sacramenti  cujuscunKjue  susceptione  com- 
mittitur. 

Obex  negativus  consistit  in  carentia  dispositionis  necessarise  ad  eflectum 
sacramenti  ex  ignorantia  vel  inadvertentia  nuUo  modo,  vel  saltern  non 
graviter  culpabili ;  v.  g.  ignorantia  inculpabilis  necessariorum  necessitate 
medii. — Dens,  de  Sacram.,  vol.  v..  No.  xxix.,  p.  107. 

'  Catholicae  igitur  Ecclesise  sacramenta,  quemadmodum  ex  Scripturis 
probatur,  ct  Patruiu  traditione  ad  nos  pervenit,  et  conciliorum  testiitur 


318  THE    VALIDITY   OF    THE    BAPTISM 

sinner  is  renewed  by  baptism,  strengthened  by  confirmation, 
nurtured  by  the  eucharist,  restored  to  health  by  penance, 
and  dismissed  into  eternity,  prepared  for  its  awful  solemni- 
ties, by  extreme  unction.  Baptism  is  the  birth,  confirma- 
tion the  growth,  the  eucharist  the  food,  penance  the  medi- 
cine, and  extreme  unction  the  consummation  of  the  spirit- 
ual man.  Call  them  causes  or  call  them  machines,  no 
matter  how  they  act,  while  it  is  conceded  that  the  sacra- 
ments confer  grace  ex  opere  operato,  their  relation  to  the 
economy  of  salvation  is  substantially  that  which  the  eternal 
Word  assigns  to  the  Third  Person  of  the  Trinity. 

Lying  vanities,  as  they  are,  according  to  the  teaching  of 
the  mother  of  harlots,  they  are  yet  the  saviours  to  which 
the  millions  of  her  deluded  children  cling  for  acceptance 
before  God.  They  are  accustomed  to  use  nothing  higher  in 
the  scale  of  excellence  than  the  empty  pageantry  of  cere- 

auctoritas,  septenario  numero  definita  sunt.  Cur  autem  neque  plura 
neque  pauciora  numerentur,  ex  iis  etiam  rebus,  quae  per  similitudinem  a 
natural!  vita  ad  spiritualem  transferuntur,  probabili  quadam  ratione 
ostendi  poterit.  Homini  enim  ad  vivendum,  vitaraque  conservandam,  et 
ex  sua  reique  publicse  utilitate  traducendam,  hsec  septem  necessaria  viden- 
tur :  ut  scilicet  in  lucem  edatur,  augeatur,  alatur ;  si  in  morbum  incidat, 
sanetur;  imbecillitas  virium  reficiatur;  deinde,  quod  ad  rempublicam 
attinet,  ut  magistratus  nunquam  desint,  quorum  auctoritate,  et  imperio 
regatur ;  ac  postremo,  legitima  sobolis  propagatione  seipsum  et  humanum 
genus  conservet.  Quae  omnia  quoniam  vit?e  illi,  qua  anima  Deo  vivit, 
respondere  satis  apparet,  ex  iis  facile  sacramentorum  numerus  colligetur. 

Baptismus. — Primus  enim  est  baptismus,  veluti  ceterorum  janua,  quo 
Christo  renascimur. 

Confirmatio. — Deinde  confirmatio,  cujus  virtute  fit  ut  divina  gratia 
augeamur,  et  roboremur.  Baptizatis  enim  jam  apostolis,  ut  Divus  Augus- 
tinus  testatur,  inquit  Dominus :  Sedete  in  civitate,  donee  induamini  virtute 
ex  alto. 

Eucharktia. — Tum  Eucharistia,  qua,  tanquam  cibo  verl  cselesti,  spiritus 
noster  alitur,  et  sustinetur.  De  e^  enim  dictum  est  k  Salvatore :  "  Caro 
mea  vere  est  cibus,  et  sanguis  mens  vere  est  potus." 

Poeniteniia. — Sequitur  quarto  loco  pauitentia,  cujus  ope  sanitas  amissa 
restituitur,  postquam  peccati  vulnera  accepimus. 

Extrema-unctio. — Postea  vero  Extrema-unctio,  qui  peccatorum  reliquiae 
tolluntur,  et  animi  virtutes  recreantur,  siquidem  D.  Jacobus,  cdm  de  hoc 
Sacramento  loqueretur,  ita  testatus  est:  Et  si  in  peccatis  sit,  remittentur ei. — 
Trid.  Catech.,  Pars  ii.,  cap.  i.,  §  18. 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  319 

monlal  pomp,  or  to  dream  of  nothing'  better  in  the  way  of 
felieity  than  the  solemn  farce  of  sacerdotal  benediction ; 
their  hopes  are  falsehood  and  their  food  is  dust.  Strangers 
to  the  true  conei8i<^n  of  the  heart  ■which  they  have  expe- 
rienced who  -worship  God  in  the  Spirit,  rejoice  in  Christ 
Jesus,  and  have  no  confidence  in  the  flesh,  the  miserable 
votaries  of  Rome  confound  the  emotions  of  mysterious  awe 
produced  by  the  solemnities  of  a  sensual  worship  with  reve- 
rence for  God  and  the  impressions  of  grace.  Doomed  to 
grope  among  the  beggarly  elements  of  earth,  they  regale 
the  eye,  the  fancy  and  the  car,  but  the  heart  withers.  Im- 
agination riots  on  imposing  festivals  and  magnificent  proces- 
sions, symbols  and  ceremonies,  libations  and  sacrifices ;  the 
successive  stages  of  worship  are  like  scenes  of  enchantment, 
but  the  gorgeous  splendours  of  the  liturgy,  which  famish 
the  soul  while  they  delight  the  sense,  are  sad  memorials  of 
religion  "lying  in  state  surrounded  with  the  silent  pomp 
of  death."  The  Holy  Ghost  has  been  supplanted  by  charms, 
and  physical  causes  have  usurped  the  province  of  supernat- 
ural grace. 

As  to  the  point  Avhether  the  sacraments  are  seals,  it 
deserves  to  be  remarked  that  there  is  a  discrepancy  between 
some  of  the  most  distinguished  Popish  theologians  and  the 
Catechism  of  Trent.  The  latter  teaches^  that  "as  God  in 
the  Old  Testament  was  accustomed  to  attest  the  certainty 
of  his  promises  by  signs,  so  also  in  the  New  Law  our 
Saviour  Christ,  having  promised  us  the  pardon  of  our  sins, 
heavenly  grace,  the  communication  of  the  Spirit,  has  insti- 
tuted signs  subjected  to  the  eyes  and  senses  which  serve  as 
pledges  of  His  truth,  so  that  we  cannot  doubt  but  that  He 
will  be  faithful  to  His  promises."     And  yet  of  the  same 

1  Quemadmodum  igitur  in  veteri  Testamento  Deus  fecerat,  ut  magni 
alicujns  promissi  constantiam  signis  testificaretur;  ita  etiam  in  nova  lege 
Christus  Salvator  noster  cilm  nobis  peccatoriim  veniam,  cQ?lestein  gratiam, 
Spiritfts  Sancti  comninnicationem  pollicitus  est,  qusedam  signa  oculis  et 
sensibus  subjecta  instituit ;  qiiibus  eum  quasi  pignoribiis  obligatuin  habe- 
remus,  atque  ita  fideleiu  in  promissis  futurum  dubitare  nunquam  posse- 
mus.  Ibid.,  \  xiii. 


320  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

doctrine,  as  announced  by  Luther,  Bellarmine  remarks^ 
"  that  it  is  so  absurd  that  nothing  can  be  conceived  more  so. 
Signs  and  prodigies,"  he  continues,  "  may  justly  be  emj^loyed 
for  confirming  the  message  of  a  preacher,  since  they  are 
known  and  striking  of  themselves,  and  depend  not  at  all 
upon  the  message.  But  the  sacraments  have  no  pOwer  of 
themselves  ;  they  cannot  be  even  apprehended  as  sacraments 
except  as  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  the  Word.  Those 
who  see  the  sick  suddenly  healed,  demons  expelled  at  a 
word,  the  blind  restored  to  sight,  and  the  dead  raised  from 
their  graves  by  a  preacher  of  the  Divine  Word,  are  so  struck 
and  prostrated  by  the  intrinsic  power  and  splendour  of  the 

1  Sed  hsec  sententia  "fam  est  absurda — ut  nihil  fere  cogitari  possit  absur- 
dius.  Nam  signa  atque  prodigia  ad  confirmandam  prwdicationem  merito 
adhibentur,  ciim  sint  ex  se  nota  et  illustria  neque  a  prsedicatione  ulla 
ratione  dependeant :  contra  autem  sacramenta  nuUam  ex  se  vim  habent, 
ac  ne  sacramenta  quidem  esse  intelliguntur,  nisi  testimonio  verbi  confir- 
mentur.  Itaque  qui  a  prsedicatore  divini  verbi,  vel  morbos  repente  curari, 
vel  dsemones  verbo  pelli,  vel  csecos  illuminari,  vel  ab  inferis  mortuos  revo- 
cari  conspiciunt,  ipsa  miraculi  vi  tanquam  fulgore  quodam  ita  percellim- 
tur,  ac  prosternuntur,  ut  vel  inviti  verbis  tanti  viri  fidem  habere  cogantur. 
Qui  vero  aquis  hominem  ablui,  quod  in  baptismo  facimus,  vident,  nihil 
mirantur,  neque  facile  credunt  in  ea  lotione  aliquid  sublimius  latere,  nisi 
verbo  Dei  ante  crediderint.  Quod  si  non  ante  sacramenta  suspicere  incip- 
imus,  quam  verbo  Dei  fidera  habeamus ;  quo  pacto,  quseso,  fieri  potest,  ut 
sacramentis  divina  eloquia  confirmentur?  An  non  ridiculus  esset,  qui 
ethnico  diceret;  "ut  credas  vera  esse  qu?e  dico,  amphoram  istam  aquae 
super  caput  tuum  effundam  ?"  Egregia  sane  probatio ;  nisi  enim  ex  Dei 
verbo  disceremus  lotionem  illam  et  illam  unctionem  ad  purgandos  animos 
valere,  quis  crederet?  quis  id  non  rideret?  neque  enim  id  habet  aquae 
natura,  ut  morbos  animi  curet,  et  cordis  maculas  eluat;  sed  quidquid  in 
hoc  genere  potest,  ex  institutione  divina  potest,  divinam  autem  institu- 
tionem  divina  eloquia  patefaciunt, 

Porro  comparatio  ilia,  qua  verbum  diplomat!,  sacramentum  sigillo  ab 
adversariis,  passim  confertur,  tam  est  inepta,  ut  nihil  ineptius  fingi  queat ; 
multoque  rectius  verbum  Dei  sigillum  sacramenti,  quam  sacramentum 
verbi  Dei  sigillum  dici  possit.  Nam  ut  sigillum,  etiam  sine  diplomate, 
vim  suam  habet  atque  agnoscitur  et  honoratur ;  diploma  sine  sigillo  non 
agnoscitur  esse  diploma,  nee  vim  ullam  habet ;  sic  etiam  verbum  Dei,  sine 
testimonio  sacramenti,  suam,  eamque  summam  habet  auctoritatem ;  sacra- 
mentum vero  sine  verbi  testimonio,  nullam.  Non  igitur  sacramentum,  ut 
illi  volunt,  sigillum  verbi,  sed  verbum,  sigillum  sacramenti  nominari 
iebuisset.     Bellarmine,  Preface  to  vol.  iii.,  De  Sacrament. 


OF   THE   CIIUKCII    OF    ROME.  321 

miracle  tliat  even  against  their  Mills  they  are  compelled  to 
credit  his  message.  Those,  however,  who  perceive  a  man 
washed  with  water — which  is  what  we  do  in  baptism — see 
nothing  Avonderful,  and  are  slow  to  believe  that  anything 
of  unnsnal  sublimity  lies  hid  in  the  act,  unless  they  shall 
have  i)reviously  credited  the  Word  of  God.  If  we  do  not 
begin  to  honour  the  sacraments  until  we  have  faith  in 
the  Divine  Word,  how,  I  pray,  is  it  possible  that  the  sacra- 
ments should  confirm  that  Word  ?  Would  he  not  be  ridicu- 
lous who  should  say  to  a  heathen,  In  order  that  you  may 
believe  what  I  say,  I  will  pour  this  pitcher  of  water  upon 
your  head  ?  An  admirable  proof,  truly  !  Unless  taught 
by  the  Word  of  God  that  that  washing  and  that  unction 
avail  to  purify  the  soul,  who  would  believe  it?  Who 
would  not  laugh  at  the  thought  ?  There  is  nothing  in  the 
nature  of  m  ater  to  cure  diseases  of  the  mind  or  to  cleanse 
the  stains  of  the  heart.  Whatever  virtue  of  this  sort  it 
possesses  is  derived  from  Divine  institution,  and  that  insti- 
tution is  made  known  by  the  AYord  of  God.  Besides, 
the  comparison,  so  common  among  our  adversaries,  of  the 
Word  to  a  charter  and  the  sacrament  to  its  seal,  is  so  inapt 
that  nothing  can  be  conceived  more  so.  With  much  more 
propriety  can  the  Word  be  called  the  seal  of  the  sacrament 
than  the  sacrament,  of  the  Word.  For  as  the  seal  even 
without  the  charter  has  its  own  power,  and  is  acknowledged 
and  honoured,  while  the  charter  without  the  seal  is  not  rec- 
ognized as  such,  and  has  no  force,  so  also  the  Word  of 
God  without  the  testimony  of  the  sacrament  has  its  own, 
and  that  the  highest,  authority,  M'hile  the  sacrament  without 
the  testimony  of  the  Word  has  none.  The  sacrament, 
therefore,  should  not  be  called  the  seal  of  the  Word,  but 
the  Word  the  seal  of  the  sacrament."  Manv  other  passages 
of  the  same  nature  might  be  extracted  from  this  writer  in 
which  the  doctrine  of  sacramental  seals  is  repudiated,  scouted, 
scorned.  Can  it  then  be  regarded  as  an  autlioritative  dogma 
of  Roine  ?  Her  leading  theologians  despise  it,  make  it  a 
spurn  and  trample  in  their  controversies  with  Protestants, 
Vol..  in.— 21 


322  THE   VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

pronounce  it  the  very  height  of  absurdity,  the  perfection 
of  inaptitude.  The  Decrees  of  Trent  nowhere  allude  to  it, 
and  the  only  place  in  which  it  seems  to  be  remotely  favoured 
is  a  single  short  paragraph  in  the  Tridentine  Catechism, 
occurring  in  the  midst  of  a  long,  elaborate  dissertation  on 
the  sacraments.  The  emphasis  most  clearly,  in  the  Church 
of  Rome,  is  laid  upon  the  power  of  the  sacraments  to  sanc- 
tify. This  is  their  distinguishing  feature,  this,  according  to 
Bellarmine,  their,  differentia}  Their  essence  lies  here,  and 
whoever  denies  to  them  their  power  destroys  their  reality. 

I  cannot,  therefore,  disguise  my  astonishment  that 
Princeton  should  have  represented  that  the  views  of  Home 
and  of  ourselves  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  sacraments 
are  precisely  the  same.  She  teaches  that  they  are  causes  of 
grace,  and  we  that  they  are  signs.  She  teaches  that  they 
dispense  the  blessings  of  salvation  by  their  own  poAver ;  we, 
that  they  are  nothing  without  the  Holy  Ghost.  According 
to  her,  they  justify,  regenerate  and  sanctify.  According  to 
us,  they  point  to  Him  who,  of  God,  is  made  unto  us  wisdom, 
and  righteousness,  and  sanctification,  and  redemption.  Ac- 
cording to  Rome,  they  work  infallibly  where  material  dis- 
positions exist.  According  to  us,  they  are  lifeless  and  un- 
meaning when  estranged  from  faith.  We  insist  that  they 
are  seals  of  the  everlasting  covenant,  and  Rome,  if  she 
speaks  at  all  upon  this  point,  mutters  the  confused  gabble 
of  Babel.  Rome's  sacraments  and  ours  belong  essentially 
to  different  categories.  They  are  as  wide  apart  as  action  and 
passion.  Hers  is  a  species  of  deity,  and  ours  are  content  to 
be  elements  of  earth.  When  she  baptizes,  her  Avater  pene- 
trates the  soul,  purges  the  conscience  and  purifies  the  heart. 
When  we  baptize,  we  wash  only  the  flesh,  while  our  faith 
contemplates  the  covenant  of  God  and  His  unchanging 
faithfulness.  Our  baptism  represents  what  the  blood  of  the 
Redeemer,  applied  by  the  eternal  Spirit,  performs  upon  the 
souls  of  believers.     Rome's  does  the  work  itself.     Ours  is 

^  Proinde  signum,  est  velnti  genus;  sanotiticans,  voluti  differentia.  Bel- 
larmine, De  Sacramentis,  Lib.  i.,  cap.  x. 


OF    THE   CHURCH    OF    ROME.  323 

vain  without  the  Holy  Ghost.     Rome's  is   all   the  Holy- 
Ghost  she  needs. 

From  the  foregoing  discussion  it  will  be  seen  that  Home 
vitiates  the  form  of  the  sacraments  by  inculcating  the 
dogma  that  they  produce  their  effects  ex  opere  operaio.  It 
is  this  principle  which  changes  them  from  means  into  laws 
or  causes  of  grace,  and  converts  them  into  a  species  of  ma- 
cliinery,  by  the  use  of  which  men  become  the  architects  of 
their  spiritual  fortunes.  The  argument,  therefore,  as  urged 
against  Rome,  does  not  apply  with  equal  force  to  the  strictly 
Lutheran  and  the  English  churches,  unless  it  can  be  shown 
that  these  communions  embrace  the  principle  that  the  sac- 
raments confer,  ex  opere  operato,  the  grace  which  they  signify. 
The  churches  of  the  East  I  have  no  disposition  to  ridicule. 
There  is  sad  reason  to  apprehend  that  the  Gospel  has  long 
since  departed  from  their  sanctuaries.  But  the  great  Prot- 
estant communions  of  England  and  Germany,  glorious  from 
the  strife  of  other  days,  I  cannot  contemplate,  with  all  their 
defects,  without  veneration  and  love ;  and  it  will  require 
something  more  than  the  unsupported  word  of  the  Reviewer 
to  convince  my  mind  that  they  symbolize  with  Rome  in  one 
of  her  deadliest  errors.'  The  English  Reformers  have  ex- 
pressed themselves  with  great  clearness  upon  the  subject  of 
the  sacraments — this  having  been  one  of  the  hottest  j>oints 
of  controversy  in  England — and  their  Catechisms,  Letters, 
Protestations  and  Creeds  are  free  from  any  tinge  of  error. 
The  Articles  adopted  in  London  in  1552,  and  published  by 
the  king,  Edward  VI.,  in  1553,  are  as  explicitly  Protestant 
as  words  can  make  them.  The  26th  treats  of  the  sacra- 
ments, in  which  it  is  said  that  "in  such  only  as  worthily 

1  "  Besides,  if  baptism  is  null  and  void  when  administered  by  those  who 
bold  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  what  shall  we  say  to  the  bap- 
tism in  the  Church  of  P^ngland,  in  the  strict  Lutheran  churches  and  in  all 
the  churches  of  the  East?  On  this  plan  we  shall  have  to  unchurch 
almost  the  whole  Christian  world;  and  Presbyterians,  instead  of  being  the 
most  catholic  of  churches,  and  admitting  tlie  being  of  a  church  wlierever 
we  see  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  would  become  one  of  the  narrowest  and 
most  bigoted  of  sects."     Princeton  Rev.,  July,  1845,  p.  452. 


324  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

receive  the  same  they  have  a  wholesome  effect  and  opera- 
tion, and  yet  not  that  of  the  work  ^vrought  {ex  opere  operato), 
as  some  men  speak ;  which  word,  as  it  is  strange  and  un- 
known to  Holy  Scripture,  so  it  engendereth  no  godly,  but  a 
very  superstitious,  sense."  ^  The  Catechism  adopted  by  the 
same  Convention,  and  published  at  the  same  time,  is  almost 
as  bald  in  its  definition  or  description  as  Zuingle  himself 
could  have  desired."  The  Articles,  as  now  existing,  have 
undergone  considerable  changes  since  the  reign  of  the  good 
King  Edward ;  the  clause  condemning  the  opus  operatum 
doctrine  of  Rome  is  no  longer  retained,  but  the  opposite 
truth  is  most  clearly  expressed.  A\Tiat  there  is  in  the 
Lutheran  symbols  to  subject  them  to  the  just  imputation  of 
the  Romish  error,  I  am  unable  to  discover.  Luther  him- 
self, says  Bellarmine,^  has  defined  a  sacrament  "  to  be  noth- 
ing else  than  a  Divine  testimony,  instituted  for  exciting  and 
increasing  faith,  which,  like  a  miracle,  confirms,  and,  like  a 
seal,  ratifies,  the  promise  of  grace."  "A  ceremony  in  the 
New  Testament  without  faith,"  says  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion,^ "  merits  nothing,  either  for  the  agent  or  others.  It  is 
a  dead  work,  according  to  the  saying  of  Christ,  The  true 
worshippers  shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth. 

^  Kichmond's  British  Eeformers,  p.  334. 

^  Master.     Tell  me  what  thou  callest  earliest  sacraments? 

Scholar.  Tbey  are  certain  customary  reverent  doings  and  ceremonies 
ordained  by  Christ,  that  by  them  He  might  put  us  in  remembrance  of  His 
benefits,  and  we  might  declare  our  profession  that  we  be  of  the  number  of 
them  which  are  partakers  of  the  same  benefits,  and  which  fasten  all  their 
affiance  in  Him ;  that  we  are  not  ashamed  of  the  name  of  Christ,  or  to  be 
termed  Christ's  scholars.     Ibid.,  p.  369. 

^  Princeps  Lutherus,  ciim  in  Babylone,  tum  in  assertione  Articulorum, 
nihil  aliud  sacramentum  esse  voluit  nisi  divinum  testimonium  ad  excitan- 
dam,  vel  nutriendam  fidem,  institutum,  quod  instar  miraculi  confirmet,  et 
instar  sigilli  obsignet  promissionem  gratise.  Quocirca  Sacramenta  fere 
conferre  solet  cum  vellere  Gedeonis,  cum  signo  quod  Isaias  obtulit  regi 
Achaz,  cum  aliis  ejusmodi  miraculis,  atque  prodigiis,  quibus  ad  faciendam 
fidem  Propheta?  et  Apostoli  utebantur.  Bellarmine,  Praef.,  vol.  iii.,  De 
Sacramentis. 

*  Augsburg  Confession,  De  Missa ;  compare  also  Article  xiii.,  which  is 
very  strong. 


OF    THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  325 

The  whole  eleventh  cliaptcr  ol"  llchrcws  jji-ovcs  the  same: 
By  faith  Abel  ottered  abetter  !^a('ritice;  witliout  faitli  it  is 
impossible  to  please  God.  Therefore,  the  Mass  does  not 
merit  remission  of  guilt  or  punishment  ex  oj)erc  opcrato. 
This  reason  clearly  refutes  the  merit  whieh  they  term  ex 
opcre  operato.'^  If  there  be  any  one  principle  of  the  Gospel 
Avhieh  Luther  saAV  in  a  steady  lio-ht  and  held  with  a  firm 
grasj),  that  principle  was  justification  by  faith — a  principle 
as  utterly  opposed  to  the  sacramental  grace  of  Rome  as  to 
the  ceremonial  righteousness  of  the  Jews ;  and  it  is  grossly 
improbable  that  Luther,  who  understood  so  fully,  appreciated 
so  highly,  and  laboured  so  severely  for,  the  liberty  wherewith 
Christ  has  made  us  free,  should  have  been  entangled  with 
the  galling  yoke  of  ceremonial  bondage.  How  could  he 
the  business  of  whose  life  it  was  to  unfold  the  blessedness  of 
faith  have  taught,  in  the  same  breath  in  which  he  proclaim- 
ed the  glories  of  the  Cross,  that  we  are  justified  bv  any  ex- 
ternal work,  however  sacred  ?  Tell  it  not  in  Gath,  publish 
it  not  in  the  streets  of  Askelon  !  It  is  true  that  he  did  teach — 
what  the  Liturgy  of  England  is  supposed  to  sanction — that 
infants  are  regenerated  at  the  time  of  baptism,  but  he  was 
far  from  teaching  the  mortal  heresy  of  Rome,  that  baptism 
itself  renews  them.  He  treated  the  sacrament  as  only  a 
sign  and  seal ;  but  he  supposed  that  God  works  in  their 
hearts  by  the  power  of  his  Holy  Spirit  that  faith,  upon 
which  the  grace  of  the  sacrament  depends.  The  sacrament, 
in  other  words,  profits  them  precisely  as  it  does  all  other 
believers.  It  is  a  symbol  and  a  seal  in  every  case,  whether 
of  infants  or  adults,  addressed  to  faith.  "  Perhaps,"  says  lie 
in  the  Babylonian  Captivity,'  after  liaving  explained  the 
necessity  of  faith  to  the  efficacy  of  baptism,  "  perhaps  the 
baptism  of  little  children  may  be  objected  to  what  I  say  as 
to  the  necessity  of  faith.  But  as  the  AVord  of  God  is  mightv 
to  change  the  heart  of  an  ungodly  person,  who  is  not  less 
deaf  nor  hel])less  than  an  infant,  so  the  prayer  of  the  Church, 
to  which  all  things  are  possible,  changes  the  little  child,  by 
1  Quoted  in  D'Aiihigne's  Ilist.  Ref.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  iii.,  Carter's  lulition. 


326  THE   VALIDITY   OF   THE   BAPTISM 

the  operation  of  the  faith  which  God  pours  into  his  soul,  and 
thus  purifies  and  renews  it."  "  The  Anabaptists,"  he  says 
again,^  "  greatly  err  in  preventing  infants  from  being  bap- 
tized. For  though  little  children  at  another  time  want  the 
judgment  of  reason,  yet  when  they  are  baptized,  God  so 
operates  upon  their  minds  that  they  hear  His  Word,  and 
know  and  love  Him,  as  formerly  the  holy  John,  in  the 
womb  of  his  mother,  perceived  the  presence  of  Christ,  and 
leaped  for  joy."  If  other  evidence  were  wanting  that  he 
w^as  far  from  embracing  the;  opus  operatum  fiction  of  Rome, 
I  might  refer  to  his  Sermon  on  Baptism,  in  which  he  de- 
nounces this  heresy  of  schools,  and  while  he  admits  that 
the  Master  of  the  Sentences  and  his  followers  have  treated 
w^ell  of  the  dead  matter  of  the  sacraments,  he  asserts  that 
"their  spirit,  life  and  use,  w^hich  consist  in  the  verity  of 
the  Divine  promise  and  our  owai  faith,  have  been  left 
wholly  untouched."  ^  And  nothing  more  is  needed  to  vin- 
dicate the  Lutheran  Church  than  Melancthon's  defence,  in 
his  Apology,  of  the  passage  already  extracted  from  the 
Augsburg  Confession.^  "  Here  we  condemn,"  says  he,  "the 
whole  rabble  of  Scholastic  doctors,  who  teach  that  the  sacra- 

^  Potius  graviter  errant  Anabaptistse,  homines  fanatici  ac  furiosi,  dum 
infantes  baptizari  prohibent.  Nam  etsi  parvuli  alio  tempore  judicio 
rationis  carent,  tamen  dum  baptizantur,  sic  in  eorum  mentibus  operatur 
Deus,  ut  et  verbum  Dei  audiant,  et  Deum  etiam  agnoscant,  ac  diligant ; 
quemadmodum  olim  sanctus  Joannes  in  utero  matris  Christi  prsesentiam 
sensit,  et  prae  guadio  exultavit.  Luther  quoted  in  Bellarmine,  Pra^f ,  as 
above. 

^  Esto  contemptor  Magistri  Sententiarum  cum  omnibus  suis  scribentibus, 
qui  tantum  de  materia,  et  forma  sacramentorum  scribunt,  dum  optime 
scribunt,  id  est,  mortuam,  et  occidentem  literam  Sacramentorum  tractant ; 
cseterum  spiritum,  vitam,  et  usum,  id  est,  promissionis  divinse  veritatem, 
et  nostram  fidem  prorsus  intacta  relinquunt.  Luther  quoted  in  Bellar- 
mine, De  Sacram.,  Lib.  i.,  cap.  ii. 

3  llic  daranamus  totum  populum  scholasticorum  Doctorum,  qui  docent, 
quod  Sacramenta  non  ponenti  obicem  conferent  gratiam  ex  opere  operalo 
sine  bono  motu  utentis.  Hsec  sirapliciter  Judaiea  opinio  est,  sentire,  quod 
per  ceremoniam  justificemur,  sine  bonu  motu  cordis,  hoc  est,  sine  fide :  et 
tamen  hfec  irapia,  et  superstitiosa  opinio  magna  auctoritate  docetur  in  tota 
regno  Pontificio.  Luther  quoted  in  Bellarmine,  De  Sacram.,  Lib.  i., 
cap.  iii. 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  327 

mcnts  confer  grace  upon  him  who  interposes  no  obstucle, 
ex  opere  operato,  without  any  good  motion  on  the  part  of 
the  recipient.  This  opinion  is  pure  Judaism — to  suppose 
that  we  can  be  justified  by  a  ceremony  without  a  good 
motion  of  the  heart,  tliat  is,  without  faith;  and  yet  this 
iini)ious  iuid  superstitious  opinion  is  taught  with  great 
authority  in  tlie  wliole  kingdom  of  the  Pope."  Such  proofs 
might  be  indefinitely  multiplied.'  The  Reviewer,  I  think, 
nuist  have  been  misled  by  the  ambiguity  of  the  piirase, 
baptismal  regeneration.  It  may  mean  regeneration  pro- 
duced by  the  ordinance  itself,  ex  opere  operato,  or,  as  Bellar- 
mine  expresses  it,  the  external  action — which  is  the  doctrine 
of  Rome;  or  it  may  mean  regeneration  effected  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  at  the  time  of  baptism — Avhich  was  unques- 
tionably the  opinion  ^of  Luther,  and  perhapsof  the  com  pi  lei's 
of  the  English  Ritual.  The  first  destroys  the  nature  of  the 
sacrament  as  a  sign  and  seal ;  the  other  docs  not  impair  it : 
and  hence  the  argument,  so  fatal  to  Rome,  leaves  untouched 
the  English  and  Lutheran  comnuniions. 

To  obviate  a  difficulty  which  may  suggest  itself  to  the 
minds  of  some,  it  may  be  well  to  remark  that  the  erroi-s 
of  an  individual  minister  do  not  invalidate  the  ordinances 
dispensed  by  him,  so  long  as  the  Church  with  which  he 
is  connected  teaches  in  her  symbols,  and  retains  as  a  body, 
just  conceptions  of  their  nature.  He  is  guilty  of  aggra- 
vated sin  in  trifling  with  the  mysteries  of  Christ.  But  his 
public  and  official  acts  must  be  measured  not  by  his  ])rivate 
opinions,  since  it  is  not  man's  prerogative  to  search  the 
heart,  but  by  the  standards  of  the  society  to  which  he  be- 
longs, and  by  whose  immediate  authority  he  acts.  Those 
who,  in  Christian  siin])li('ity,  receive  the  sacraments  at  his 

1  This  matter  is  discussed  pretty  fully  in  the  tliird  volume  of  Bellar- 
mine's  "  Disputationum,  de  Controversiis/'  lufjolstadt  e<lition,  IGOl,  which 
is  the  edition  constantly  referred  to  in  these  articles.  The  arch-Jesuit 
(piotes  passages  from  Lntlier  wliich  seem  to  insinuate  the  Papal  doctrine, 
hut  which,  he  proves  conclusively,  were  not  intended  to  teach  it.  Bellar- 
mine  contends  that  it  was  ahsolutely  impossihle  for  him  to  teach  it  as  long 
as  he  held  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith. 


328  THE    VALIDITY    OF   THE    BAPTISM 

hands  will  receive  them  with  profit  to  their  souls.  He, 
indeed,  is  a  heretic,  but  his  Church  is  sound ;  and  the  ordi- 
nances which  he  dispenses  are  those  received  by  the  Church, 
and  not  the  inventions  of  his  own  mind.  Hence,  baptism 
administered  in  the  Church  of  England  by  an  Arian  or  a 
Puseyite,  though  the  one  denies  the  Trinity  and  the  other 
the  essence  of  the  sacrament,  is  unquestionably  valid,  be- 
cause the  Church  itself  is  sound  upon  both.  And  so  there 
may  be,  perhaps  are,  priests  in  the  Papal  communion  who 
hold  the  true,  Protestant,  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  sacra- 
ments; and  yet,  as  they  act  under  covenanted  articles,  and 
are  consequently  presumed  to  do  what  the  Church  intends, 
the  ordinances  dispensed  by  them  cannot  be  regarded  as 
valid.  The  creed  of  the  Church,  not  the  intentions  of  in- 
dividuals, must  be  our  standard  of  judgment.  Here  we 
have  what  the  Reviewer  calls  "the  professed,  ostensible 
design;"  and  Rome's  baptism  I  feel  solemnly  bound  to  reject, 
because  her  design  is  not  the  design  of  Christ.  She  professes 
to  do  a  different  thing  from  what  the  Saviour  instituted. 

2.  The  most  conclusive  proof  that  Romish  baptism  is 
essentially  different  from  the  ordinance  of  Christ  remains 
yet  to  be  considered.  It  might,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
be  conceded  to  the  Reviewer  that  both  consist  of  the  same 
matter  and  are  administered  in  the  same  manner — that 
both  are  regarded  as  instituted  symbols,  and  nothing  more, 
which  at  once  represent  and  confirm  our  interest  in  that 
which  is  represented ;  still,  their  identity  could  not  be  as- 
serted unless  they  were  signs  of  the  same  truths  and  seals 
of  the  same  promises.  It  is  just  as  essential  to  the  form 
of  a  sacrament  that  it  have  a  relation  to  the  right  things 
as  that  it  have  the  right  kind  of  relationship  itself.  While 
it  must  be  a  sign  and  seal,  it  is  equally  indispensable  that 
it  be  a  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  Its  specific 
purpose,  according  to  the  Westminster  Confession,  is  "to 
represent  Christ  and  His  benefits,  to  confirm  our  interest  in 
Him,  and  to  jiut  a  visible  difference  between  those  that 
belong  unto  the  Church  and  the  rest  of  the  world,  and 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  329 

solemnly  to  engage  them  to  the  service  of  God  in  Christ, 
according  to  His  Word."  Hence  all  Protestants,  however 
they  have  differed  in  other  points,  have  regarded  the  sacra- 


ociaunino:, 


&> 


ments  as  badges  of  Christian  profession.  Procl 
they  do  to  the  eye,  the  great  distinguishing  features  of  re- 
demption, they  cannot  be  consistently  received  nor  decently 
administered  when  the  scheme  of  salvation,  in  its  essential 
elements,  is  denied  or  repudiated;  and  as  their  purpose  is 
to  confirm  our  interest  in  Christ,  they  evidently  involve 
such  a  profession  of  Christianity  as  is  consistent  with  a 
reasonable  hope  of  personal  acceptance  through  His  blood. 
To  assert,  consequently,  of  Romish  baptism  integrity  of 
form,  is  to  assert  that  he  who  receives  it  if  arrived  at 
years,  and  his  sponsors  who  present  him  if  an  infant  of  days, 
make  a  credible  profession  of  vital  union  with  Him  who  is 
the  substance  of  the  eternal  covenant,  and  in  whom  all  its 
promises  are  yea  and  amen.  Baptism  administered  to  those 
who  do  not  profess  to  believe  the  Gospel  is  evidently  null 
and  void;  it  is  an  empty  ceremony,  a  sign  and  seal  of 
nothing.  The  question,  therefore,  at  issue  between  the  As- 
sembly and  the  Reviewer  is,  whether  a  man,  by  submitting 
to  the  Romish  ordinance,  becomes  a  "professing  Clu'istian;" 
or,  in  other  words,  whether,  consistently  with  the  faith  that 
the  church  requires,  and  the  obligations  she  imposes  upon 
him  in  imparting  to  him  this  first  sacrament,  he  can  cher- 
ish a  scriptural  hope  of  "his  engrafting  into  Christ,  of  re- 
generation, of  remission  of  sins,  and  of  his  giving  up  unto 
God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  to  walk  in  newness  of  life." 
These  are  the  benefits  which  baptism  signifies  and  seals ; 
and  if  the  profession  which  is  actually  made  or  necessarily 
implied  is  incompatible  with  the  reception  of  these  bless- 
ings, it  is  not  a  profession  but  a  denial  of  the  Gospel;  and 
sucii  baptism  docs  not  neal,  but  gives  the  lie  to,  the  covenant 
of  grace.  It  is  imjKjrtant  to  bear  in  mind  that  tiie  profes- 
sion which  the  validity  of  the  ordinance  requires  is  not 
that  of  a  general  belief  in  Ciu-istianity,  without  specific 
reference   to   what   is,  par  eminence,  v[\\\vi.\   the  (i(isi)cl,  but 


330  THE    VALIDITY    OF   THE    BAPTISM 

oue  which  is  consistent  with  a  saving  interest  in  Christ. 
The  two  things  are  evidently  distinct,  though  the  Reviewer 
has  more  than  once  confounded  them.  There  is  a  loose 
and  general  sense  in  which  the  term  Christian  is  applied  to 
all  who  trace  their  religion,  whatever  may  be  its  doctrines 
or  precepts,  to  the  authority  of  Christ.  It  is  an  epithet 
which  distinguishes  them  from  Jews,  Pagans  and  Moham- 
medans, and  all  Avho  do  not  believe  in  Jesus  as  a  teacher 
sent  from  God.  In  this  application  it  does  not  indicate  any 
particular  type  of  doctrine,  whether  Calvinism,  Arianism, 
Pelagianism  or  Socinianism;  it  expresses  simply  the  fact 
that  whatever  be  the  system,  it  is  professedly  received  upon 
the  authority  of  Christ. 

In  this  sense  no  one  denies  that  Papists  are  Christians: 
no  one,  using  his  terms  in  the  strictest  sense,  would  rank 
them  "in  the  same  category"^  with  Mohammedans  and 
Pagans,  with  Jews,  infidels  and  Turks.  They  are  Chris- 
tians upon  the  same  principle  which  extends  the  epithet  to 
Pelagians,  Arians,  Universalists  and  Socinians.  But  there 
is  another  and  a  stricter  sense  in  which  Christian  denotes  a 
peculiar  relation  to  Christ,  and  is  confined  exclusively  to 
those  who  believe,  or  profess  to  believe,  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  or  what  is  distinctively  styled  the  way 
of  salvation.  To  be  entitled  to  this  ajiplication  of  it,  some- 
thing more  is  required  than  a  general  belief  in  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  as  the  author  of  a  new  dispensation  of  religion. 
The  religion  itself  which  He  taught,  not  any  system  which 
men  may  choose  to  ascribe  to  Him  and  recommend  to  the 
world  under  the  sanction  of  His  name,  but  that  which  He 
proclaimed  in  His  own  person,  or  committed  to  the  inspired 
founders  of  His  Church,  which  is  emphatically  the  way  of 
life,  and  the  only  basis  of  human  hope,  must  in  its  leading 
principles  be  cordially  embraced.  They  only  can  be  Chris- 
tians, in  this  strict  and  proper  sense,  who  profess  to  receive 
under  the  name  of  Christianity  nothing  that  subverts  the 
economy  of  grace. 

^  Princeton  Review,  July,  1845,  p,  465. 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  331 

It  may  be  oheerliiUy  conceded,  the  Assembly  has  not 
denied,  and  the  whole  Protestant  world  has  asserted,  that 
in  the  first  sense  tiie  Church  of  Home  is  Christian — Chris- 
tian, as  the  Schoolmen  would  say,  secandum  quid,  accident- 
ally and  not  essentially;  Christian,  as  professing  to  trace 
her  scheme  of  doctrine,  whatever  it  may  be,  to  the  instruc- 
tions of  Christ.  She  may  be  Christian  in  this  sense,  and 
yet  all  her  children  go  down  to  hell.  She  may  have  the 
name  without  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  As  the  sacraments, 
however,  contemplate  the  covenant  of  grace  as  a  scheme  of 
salvation,  as  it  is  not  the  name  but  the  religion  of  Jesus 
which  they  signify  and  seal,  if  Rome  in  dispensing  her  bap- 
tism demands  a  faith  and  imposes  obligations  which  are 
inconsistent  with  a  saving  relation  to  Christ,  however  she 
may  make  professing  Christians  in  one  sense,  she  makes 
none  in  the  only  sense  in  which  the  title  is  important.  If 
she  does  not  baptize  into  Christianity  in  its  peculiar  and 
distinguishing  features  as  the  scheme  of  redemption  and 
the  foundation  of  human  hope,  she  might  as  well,  so  far  as 
any  valuable  result  is  concerned,  baptize  into  the  name  of 
Confucius  or  Mohammed. 

If  she  is  not  Christian  in  the  second  sense  which  I  have 
indicated,  if  her  Gospel  is  not  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  her 
religion  not  the  religion  of  the  Son  of  God,  her  baptism 
cannot  be  tliat  which  He  instituted.  Though  Christian  in 
name,  she  is  Antichristian  in  reality.  The  real  question, 
consequently,  is,  whether  or  not  in  what  she  denominates 
baptism  Rome  requires  a  profession  and  imposes  obligations 
which  are  inconsistent  with  a  saving  interest  in  Christ,  or 
tlie  a[)plication  of  tliose  very  benefits  which  the  Christian 
sacrament  was  appointed  to  represent  and  seal.  Can  a  man 
believe  what  she  commands  him  to  believe,  and  engage  to  do 
^\■hat  she  obliges  him  to  do,  and  be  at  the  same  time  a  spirit- 
ual disciple  of  Jesus  Christ  ?  This  is  the  issue.  Princeton 
says  that  he  can  :  the  Assembly  and  all  the  Protestant  world 
have  declared  that  he  cannot.  To  determine  the  matter, 
the  profession   and  engagements  must  be  previously  appre- 


332  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

hended  which  a  man  makes  when  he  is  baptized  in  the 
Church  of  Rome.  The  statements  of  the  Reviewer  upon 
this  point  are  wide  of  the  truth.  By  a  most  extraordiiiaiy 
paradox,  as  it  seems  to  me,  the  merits  of  which  will  be  aficr- 
wards  discussed,  he  has  been  led  to  maintain  that  the  recipi- 
ents of  Romish  baptism  are  not  made  Romanists,  and  that  the 
heresies  of  Popery  are  not  exacted  in  the  ordinance.^  But 
what  says  Rome  herself?  She  certainly  is  a  better  witness 
of  what  she  actually  imposes  on  her  children  than  those  that 
are  without.  "  Whosoever  shall  affirm,"  says  the  Council 
of  Trent,^  "  that  the  baptized  are  free  from  all  the  precepts 
of  holy  Church,  either  written  or  delivered  by  tradition,  so 
that  they  are  not  obliged  to  observe  them  unless  they  will 
submit  to  them  of  their  own  accord,  let  him  be  accursed." 
This  is  sufficiently  explicit,  and  so  strong  is  the  obligation 
which  baptism  imposes  to  observe  these  precepts  which 
make  up  what  Rome  calls  a  "  Christian  life,"  that  those 
who  when  arrived  at  years  may  be  disposed  to  relinquish 
the  vicarious  promises  of  their  sponsors  can  yet  be  com- 
pelled to  redeem  them.^  It  is  true  that  the  Apostles'  Creed 
is  the  summary  which  is  actually  professed  at  the  time  of 
baptism,  but  then  this  contains  only  the  heads  of  doctrine, 
the  details  of  which  must  be  embraced  according  to  the  sys- 
tem of  Rome.  "  The  true  Catholic  faith,  out  of  which  none 
can  be  saved,"  and  into  which  consequently  all  must  be 

'  "It  was  hence  argued  that  the  recipients  of  Romish  baptism  are  made 
Romanists,  and  are  baptized  into  a  profession  of  all  the  heresies  of  Popery. 

This  appears  to  us  an  entirely  wrong  view  of  the  subject No  man, 

therefore,  is  made  a  Papist  by  being  baptized  by  a  Papist."  Princeton 
Review,  .July,  1845,  pp.  468,  469. 

^  Si  quis  dixerit,  baptizatos  liberos  esse  ab  omnibus  Sanctje  Ecclesiaj 
prajceptis,  quae  vel  scripta  vel  tradita  sunt,  ita  ut  ea  observare  non  tenean- 
tur,  nisi  se,  sua  sponte,  illis  submittere  voluerint ;  anathema  sit.  Cone. 
Trident.,  Sess.  vii.,  can.  viii.,  De  Baptis. 

^  Si  quis  dixerit,  hujusmodi  parvulos  baptizatos,  cum  adoleverint,  inter- 
rogandos  esse,  an  ratum  haberi  velint,  quod  patroni  eorum  nomine,  dum 
baptizarentur,  polliciti  sunt ;  et  ubi  se  nolle  responderint  suo  esse  arbit- 
rio  relinquendos,  nee  alia  interim  })(i>iia  ad  Christianam  vitam  cogendos, 
nisi  ut  ab  Eucharistise  alioruuKpie  Sacramentorum  perceptione  arccantur, 
donee  resipiscant ;  anathema  sit.     Ibid.,  can.  xiv.,  De  l?;iptis. 


OF   TIIK   CHURCH    OF    ROME.  333 

baptized,  is  the  symbol  of  Pius  lY.  This  creed  all  prose- 
lytes to  the  Romisli  Church  are  ro(|uired  publicly  to  adopt, 
and  hence  it  must  be  the  creed  which  all  her  children  are 
presumed  to  embrace.  They  are  at  liberty  to  put  no  other 
interpretation  upon  the  sacred  Scriptures,  much  less  upon 
minor  symbols  of  fiiith,  than  that  which  the  Church  has 
authorized.  Baptism  is  regarded  as  a  sort  of  oath  to  observe 
her  statutes  and  ordinances,  and  whatever  articles  she  pro- 
poses at  the  time  must  be  taken  in  her  own  sense.  The 
coiiinna  hnponeydis  determines  what  the  catechumen  must 
believe,  or  be  understood  to  profess,  when  he  gives  his 
assent  to  ^hose  sections  of  the  creed  which  treat  of  the 
holy  catholic  Church,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  the  commu- 
nion of  saints,  and  the  state  of  the  dead.  As  she  makes  a 
public  declaration  beforehand  that  all  whom  she  bajjtizes 
are  subject  to  her  authority  in  faith  and  practice,  as  this  is 
the  known  condition  on  which  the  ordinance  is  dispensed,  it 
is  undeniable  that  those  who  receive  it  at  her  hands  do  vir- 
tually profess  "  her  whole  complicated  system  of  truth  and 
error,"  and  become  ipso  facto  Romanists  or  Papists.  Her 
notorious  claim  to  exact  obedience  afterwards  upon  the 
ground  of  baptism  would  be  grossly  preposterous  upon  any 
other  hypothesis.  Bellarmine  accordingly  enumerates  it 
among  the  advantages  of  the  ceremonies  which  Rome  has 
appended  to  her  ordinances  that  those  who  are  baptized 
with  them  are  distinguished  not  merely  from  Jews,  infidels 
and  Turks,  but  also  from  heretics  or  Protestants — that  is, 
they  profess  by  the  reception  of  the  rite  with  its  Papal 
accompaniments  not  simply  Christianity  as  contradistin- 
guisiied  from  Paganism,  but  Popery  as  contradistinguished 
from  Protestantism.^ 

The  Reformers,  too,  seem  to  have  understood  the  matter 
in  the  same  light.     Regarding  baptism  as  a  species  of  com- 

^  Sexta  est  di.stinctio  Catholicorum  ab  hsereticis.  Nam  Sacramenta  siinl 
quidem  symbola  qua'dara,  quibus  discernimiir  alj  intidolibuH,  tamen  ab 
hiereticis  vix  per  Sacramenta  distingui  possumus,  sed  per  cjpremonias 
optinie  distinguimnr.     Bellarm.,  De  Sac,  Lib.  ii.,  cap.  31. 


334  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

munioii  with  the  Church,  which  implies  the  sanction  of  its 
doctrines  and  a  promise  of  subjection  to  its  precepts,  they 
deemed  it  to  be  inconsistent  with  attachment  to  the  true 
religion  to  submit  to  the  institute  of  Rome.  It  was  not 
merely  that  she  had  corrupted  by  additions  and  obscured 
by  her  mummeries  the  simple  appointment  of  Christ — 
this,  though  one,  was  not  the  principal  ground  of  objection. 
But,  according  to  the  Confession  and  Discipline  of  the  Re- 
formed Church  of  France,^  those  who  received  baptism  at 
her  hands  polluted  their  consciences  by  consenting  to  idola- 
try ;  they  virtually  endorsed  the  synagogue  of  Satan  and 
treated  it  as  the  Church  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  There 
is  a  very  striking  passage  in  the  "  Confession  and  Protesta- 
tion of  the  Christian  Faith,"  drawn  up  by  John  Clement 
on  the  first  day  of  April,  1556.  This  Clement  was  a  re- 
markable witness  for  the  truth  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Marv, 
and,  like  many  others,  was  doomed  to  the  stake  for  his 
opinions,  from  the  horrors  of  which  he  was  mercifully  saved 
by  a  natural  death  in  prison.  His  Confession,  it  would  seem 
from  the  testimony  of  Strype,  was  transcribed  and  circulated 
as  a  faithful  manual  of  the  Reformed  doctrines  in  England. 
The  passage  to  which  I  have  referred  occurs  in  the  seven- 
teenth article.  "  Howbeit,"  says  he,  "  this  I  do  confess  and 
believe,  that  no  Christian  man  ought  to  bring  or  send  his  chil- 
dren to  the  Papistical  church,  or  to  require  [request]  baptism 
of  them,  they  being  Antichrists ;  for  in  so  doing  he  doth 
confess  them  to  be  the  true  Churcli  of  Christ,  Avhich  is  a 
grievous  sin  in  the  sight  of  God  and  a  great  oiFence  to  his 
true  congregation."^  Notwithstanding  this  extraordinary 
protestation,   Clement  acknowledged   the  validity  of  such 

^In  the  mean  while,  because  of  those  corruptions  which  are  mingled 
with  the  administration  of  that  sacrament,  no  man  can  present  his  chil- 
dren to  be  baptized  in  that  Church  without  polluting  of  his  conscience. 
Quick's  Synodicon,  p.  12 ;  Confession  of  French  Reformed  Ch.,  art.  28. 

Such  as  by  their  proxies  present  children  to  be  baptized  in  the  Church 
of  Korae  shall  be  severely  censured,  because  they  consent  thereby  unto 
idolatry.     Ibid.,  p.  xlvi..  Discipline  Fr.  Ref.  Ch.,  can.  xiii. 

2 Richmond's  British  Reformers,  vol.  iv.,  p.  292. 


OF    THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  335 

baptisms:  liis  objection  to  them  Avas,  not  that  tlie  child 
Avould  fail  of  receiving  a  true  baptism,  but  that  the  parent 
])rofessed  by  implication  a  false  faith.  He  knew  nothing  of 
tlie  Princeton  theory — the  Reformed  Church  of  France  had 
never  heard  of  it — that  baptism  was  simply  an  introduction 
to  the  Church  in  general,  and  involved  a  profession  of  the 
creed  of  no  church  in  particular.  If  this  hypothesis  be  cor- 
rect, which  I  had  previously  been  accustomed  to  consider  as 
only  a  Catabaptist  riddle,  it  is  hard  to  perceive  in  what  the 
wickedness  consists  of  receiving  baptism  from  Home.  If 
her  priests  are  true  ministers  of  Jesus,  as  Princeton  affirms, 
and  impart  a  valid  baptism,  as  she  also  asserts ;  if  those  who 
submit  to  it  hold  no  communion  with  her  errors ;  if  they  are 
made  professing  Christians  and  not  Papists,  introduced  into 
Christ's  body  and  not  into  the  Papal  congregation,  where  is 
the  sin  ?  What  have  they  done  that  deserves  the  censures  of 
the  Church  ?  Surely  there  can  be  no  crime  in  being  made 
professing  Christians,  if  nothing  more  nor  worse  is  done. 
And  Avhat  more?  Is  it  that  they  have  acquiesced  in  the 
superstitious  ceremonies  which  precede,  accompany  and  fol- 
low the  administration  of  the  ordinance  ?  Was  it  for  cere- 
monies only  that  the  churches  of  France  and  Scotland  and 
the  noble  army  of  Reformers  denounced  participation  in  the 
Romish  rites  as  polluting  and  idolatrous,  and  excluded  those 
from  their  own  communion  who  had  presented  their  children 
in  Papistical  assemblies  ?  The  Lutheran  Church  retained 
many  ceremonies ;  was  it  a  sin  to  be  baptized  in  it?  The 
English  Church  in  her  palmiest  days  was  defiled  with  many 
fragments  of  Popery ;  was  the  participation  of  her  baj)- 
tism  idolatrous  ?  Why,  then,  if  ceremonies  are  so  fatal  in 
Rome,  were  they  not  equally  fatal  in  Germany  and  Britain  ? 
The  truth  is,  ceremonies  were  the  smallest  item  in  the  ac- 
count. It  was  the  faith  of  Rome  which  the  Reformers 
abhorred,  and  because  they  regarded  all  who  sought  baptism 
at  her  hands  as  professing  that  faith,  they  subjected  them  to 
discipline  as  transgressors  and  idolaters.  They  believed,  as 
all  the  world  l)ut   Princeton  believes,  that  he  who  requests 


336  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

baptism  from  Rome  declares  by  the  act  that  he  is  a  Ro- 
manist.    He  goes  to  the  Pope  because  he  loves  the  Pope. 

But  whatever  Reformers  thought,  and  whatever  Pruice- 
ton  may  think,  it  is  plain,  from  the  testimonies  already  ad- 
duced, that  Rome  herself  looks  upon  all  to  whom  she  ad- 
ministers the  ordinance  as  bound  to  be  Papists.  The  profes- 
sion which  is  made  is  the  profession  of  her  o^vn  creed ;  the 
obligation  assumed,  an  obligation  to  obey  all  her  statutes 
and  ordinances.  Now,  the  creed  of  Pius  IV.,  which  is  the 
only  distinctive  creed  of  Rome,  binds  the  subscriber,  and 
every  human  being  that  hopes  to  be  saved,  to  receive  the 
canons  and  decrees  of  Trent,  to  render  true  obedience  to  the 
Pope,  and  to  submit,  by  consequence,  to  every  bull  which  may 
be  issued  from  the  Pontifical  throne.  The  very  circum- 
stance that  this  creed  is  pronounced  to  be  indispensable  to 
salvation  shows  conclusively  that  those  must  profess  it  to 
whom  in  baj)tism  is  imparted  the  remission  of  sins.  Now 
the  question  recurs,  Is  such  a  profession  consistent  with  a 
saving  interest  in  Christ  ?  Can  a  man  believe  the  Gosjjel, 
and  at  the  same  time  believe  the  doctrines  of  Trent,  and 
the  still  more  detestable  doctrines  of  the  memorable  Con- 
stitution Unigeniius  f  Can  a  man  "  enter  into  an  open  and 
professed  engagement  to  be  wholly  and  only  the  Lord's," 
and  at  the  same  time  engage  to  observe  all  the  precepts, 
whether  written  or  traditive,  enjoined  by  the  Papal  Church  ? 

This  is  substantially  the  issue  which  the  Reviewer  him- 
self accepts  in  discussing  the  question  whether  or  not  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  a  true  church  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
"  If  a  man,"  says  he,  "  makes  no  profession  of  faith,  aac  can- 
not regard  him  as  a  believer ;  nor  can  we  so  regard  him  if 
he  makes  any  profession  inconsistent  with  the  existence  of 
saving  faith.  And  consequently,  if  a  body  of  men  make 
no  profession  of  faith,  they  cannot  be  a  church ;  nor  can 
they  be  so  regarded  if  they  make  a  profession  which  is  in- 
compatible with  saving  faith  in  Christ If,  therefore, 

we  deny  to  any  man  the  character  of  a  Christian  on  ac- 
count of  the  profession  which  he  makes,  Ave  must  be  pre- 


OF   THE   CIIUllCH   OF   ROME.  337 

pared  to  sliow  that  such  faith  is  incompatible  Avith  salva- 
tion  And  in  like  manner,  if  we  deny  to  any  body 

of  men  the  character  of  a  church  on  account  of  its  creed, 
we  thereby  assert  that  no  man  holding  that  creed  can  be 
saved."  ^  Hence  the  doctrine  of  the  Reviewer  is,  that  a 
cordial  profession  of  the  Romish  creed — for  what  signifies 
profession  without  the  corresponding  motion  of  the  heart  ? — 
Rome  being  a  true  church  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  is  not 
incomjxitible  with  saving  fiith ;  that  a  man  may,  in  other 
Avords,  be  a  sincere  Papist,  and  still  be  a  sj)iritual  child  of 
God.  If  this  proposition  can  be  sustained,  no  argument  can 
be  drawn  from  her  vicAvs  of  the  covenant  to  invalidate  the 
baptism  of  Rome ;  if  not,  the  decision  of  the  Assembly  is 
according  to  truth  and  righteousness. 

It  is  amusing  to  see  the  Reviewer,  after  having  himself 
given  so  clear  a  statement  of  the  issue  in  dispute,  proceed- 
ing in  the  very  next  breath  to  discuss  a  different  question, 
or,  if  it  be  the  same,  so  disguised  as  to  suggest  a  different 
one  to  the  mind  of  the  reader.  There  are  evidently  two 
general  causes  Avhicli  may  invalidate  a  profession  of  saving 
faith — ignorance  and  error.  The  grounds  of  suspicion  in 
the  one  case  are  defective  views  of  the  economy  of  grace; 
in  the  other,  those  that  are  incompatible  with  its  principles. 
In  the  one  case,  we  apprehend  that  enough  of  truth  is  not 
received  and  understood  to  save  the  soul ;  in  the  other, 
that  wrong  notions  and  contradictory  opinions  destroy  its 
efficacy.  In  the  one  case,  the  resolution  of  our  doubts  de- 
pends upon  the  minimum  of  truth  essential  to  salvation; 
in  the  other,  upon  the  maximum  of  error  inconsistent  with 
it.  The  question  then  is,  not,  as  the  Reviewer  intimates, 
whether  Rome  teaches  truth  enough  to  save  the  soul,  but 
whether  she  teaches  error  enough  to  damn  the  soul.  It  is 
not  a  question  of  ignorance,  but  licresy;  not  whether  her 
system  fulls  short  of  the  Gospel  standard  by  defect,  but 
whether  it  is  inconsistent  with  it  by  error ;  not  whether 
she  fails  to  profess  something  that  ought  to  be  professed 
'  Princeton  Ecview,  July,  1845,  p.  401. 
Vo...  III. -22 


338  THE   VALIDITY   OF   THE   BAPTISM 

in  order  to  salvcation,  but  whether  she  professes  something 
that  cannot  be  professed  in  consistency  with  salvation. 
These  questions  are  obviously  distinct,  and  yet  the  Re- 
viewer has  strangely  blended  and  confounded  them,  con- 
fining his  discussion  to  the  first,  and  deducing  his  conclusion 
in  reference  to  the  second.  His  whole  argument  is  a  glaring 
instance  of  ignoratio  elenchi. 

There  are  two  forms  of  heresy  incompatible  with  salva- 
tion. In  the  one,  the  foundation  is  directly  denied,  in  the 
other,  necessarily  subverted ;  in  the  one,  the  contradictory 
of  the  Gospel  is  openly  professed,  in  the  other,  it  is  secretly 
insinuated ;  the  one  destroys  by  the  boldness  of  its  attacks, 
the  other  by  the  subtlety  of  its  frauds.  The  Socinians  may 
be  taken  as  examples  of  the  one ;  the  Pelagians  as  illustra- 
tions of  the  other.  This  latter  form  of  heresy  is  the  more 
dangerous,  because  least  suspected.  It  steals  upon  the  soul 
in  insidious  disguises,  recommends  its  errors  by  the  truth  it 
adopts,  labels  its  poisons  as  healthful  medicines,  and  admin- 
isters its  deadly  draughts  under  the  promise  of  life.  To 
this  class  of  heresy  it  was  contended  in  the  Assembly  that 
the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Rome  must  be  referred. 
Whatsoever  of  the  Gospel  she  retains  is  employed  simply 
as  a  mask  to  introduce  her  errors  without  suspicion.  She  is 
a  fatal  graft  upon  the  living  stock  of  Christianity,  and 
though  the  root  be  sound,  yet  she,  as  a  branch,  brings  forth 
nothing  but  the  fruit  of  death.  Her  creed  contains  some 
truth — this  cannot  be  disputed ;  it  contains  enormous  error 
—this  is  equally  unquestionable.  The  truth  is  not  her 
creed,  the  error  is  not  her  creed,  but  the  two  combined; 
and  to  ascertain  whether  her  creed  is  incompatible  with 
salvation,  we  must  take  it  as  a  whole,  and  compare  the  sys- 
tem which  as  a  whole  it  presents  with  the  essential  prin- 
ciples of  the  Gospel.  If  it  is  inconsistent  with  them,  or 
subversive  of  them,  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  saving  creed. 
The  connection  and  dependence  of  the  truth  and  error  in  a 
complicated  system  will  determine  the  sense  in  which  each 
is  apprehended,  and  often  give  a  result  entirely  different 


OF   THE    CHURCH    OP    HOME.  339 

from  tliat  wliich  would  be  reached  by  tlic  isolated  and  sole 
contemplation  of  cither.  It  is  possible  to  assent  to  proposi- 
tions which,  in  themselves  considered,  contain  vital  and 
saving  truth,  but  yet,  as  modified  by  others,  they  may  be 
far  from  having  a  salutary  tendency.  INIcn,  for  example, 
may  profess  to  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Saviour  of 
the  world.  In  making  this  profession  they  assent  in  loords 
to  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Gospel;  and  yet  they  may 
so  limit  and  restrain  it  by  other  propositions  as  to  make 
Christ,  after  all,  the  tool  of  human  merit,  and  grace  the 
foundation  of  a  claim  of  law.  The  formularies  of  Rome 
may  contain  all  the  important  principles  of  Christianity 
which  the  Reviewer  thinks  he  has  found  there,  and  yet, 
after  all,  they  may  be  so  modified  by  the  introduction  of 
different  principles  as  to  give  a  result  utterly  incompatible 
with  the  salvation  of  the  soul.  As  she  teaches  them,  and 
as  she  requires  her  children  to  believe  them,  they  may  be 
essentially  another  Gospel.  It  is  not  enough  that  she  min- 
gles the  elements  of  Christianity  in  her  creed:  she  must 
mingle  them  with  nothing  that  shall  convert  them  into  a 
savour  of  death  unto  death.  The  most  discordant  proper- 
ties, not  unfrequeutly,  are  produced  by  different  modes  of 
combination  when  the  same  materials  are  employed.  Sugar 
and  alcohol  contain  the  same  chemical  ingredients,  but  how 
different  their  qualities  and  effects  !  And  so  the  articles 
which  make  up  the  creed  of  a  child  of  God  may  enter  into 
the  profession  of  a  Papist,  and  yet  the  system  embraced  by 
the  one  be  as  widely  different  from  the  system  of  the  other 
as  alcohol  from  sugar.  The  question  in  dispute  is,  whether 
the  Greed  of  Rome  is  a  saving  creed;  and  as  neither  her 
truth  nor  her  errors,  separately  taken,  constitute  her  creed, 
it  is  as  incongruous  to  argue  from  either  alone  as  to  infer 
the  nature  of  a  compound  from  the  properties  of  one  of  its 
ingredients.  And  yet  this  is  the  fallacy  which  the  Re- 
viewer has  perpetrated.  He  has  seized  upon  the  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  which  he  asserts  that  Rome 
holds,  and  because  she  holds  these  he  infers  that  her  cri'od 


340  tup:  validity  of  the  baptism 

must  be  saving,  without  stopping  to  inquire  whether  they 
are  not  so  linked  and  connected  with  fundamental  errors, 
so  checked,  modified  and  limited,  as  to  convey  a  meaning 
widely  remote  from  the  teachings  of  the  Bible. 

It  is  nothing  to  the  puqjose  to  say  that  the  doctrines  of 
the  Trinity,  inc-amation  and  atonement  are  saving  dcxrtrines: 
no  one  denies  it  when  they  are  scripturally  understood  and 
cordially  emh)raced ;  and  if  Rome  believed  nothing  more 
or  nothing  inconsistent  with  orthodox  conceptions  of  them, 
the  dispute  would  be  ended.  But  as  these  constitute  only  a 
fragment  of  her  creed,  it  was  incumbent  upon  Princeton  to 
show  that  her  additional  articles  were  not  incompatible  with 
the  saving  application  of  these  others. 

In  most  instances  of  the  mixture  of  error  with  import- 
ant truth,  they  are  brought  simply  in  juxtaposition  without 
any  attempt  to  define  the  system  which  results  from  their 
combination.  In  such  cases  it  is  hard  to  determine  the 
characrter  of  the  whole,  and  to  pronounce  with  confidence 
upon  its  saving  or  pernicious  tendencies.  Minds  are  so 
differently  constituted  that  the  form  of  words  which  shall 
be  the  means  of  conducting  one  to  salvation  shall  prove 
fetal  to  another.  The  real  creed,  as  it  is  impressed  upon 
the  heart,  may  be  very  different  from  that  which  the  exami- 
nation of  its  elements  might  lead  us  beforehand  to  deter- 
mine. But  in  the  case  of  Rome  no  such  difficulty  exists. 
She  has  stated  her  truths;  she  has  announced  her  errors: 
she  has  gone  farther  and  detailed  the  system  of  salvation 
which  she  deduces  from  the  whole.  Her  Gospel  is  full  and 
minute  in  the  directions  which  it  gives  to  the  sinner  who 
inquires,  with  the  jailer,  what  he  must  do  to  be  saved.  If 
these  directions  are  inconsistent  with  the  instructions  of  the 
Apostles,  if  their  obvious  tendency  is  to  subvert  and  set 
aside  the  way  of  salvation  as  revealed  in  the  Scriptures, 
the  dispute  is  ended.  Rome  repudiates  the  covenant  of 
grace  of  which  baptism  is  a  seal,  and  consequently  destroys 
the  form  of  the  Christian  sacrament.  Now  the  Reviewer 
has  nowhere  attempted  to  show  that  the  creed  of  Rome, 


OF   THE    ClIl'UCll    OF    HOME.  341 

Avliicli  is  the  creed  of  Pius  1\".,'  incliulinn-  the  ileerees  of 
Trent  (in  conibrniity  with  wliieh  it  is  expressly  provided 
that  all  previous  symbols  must  be  interpreted)  and  the  sub- 
sequent bulls  of  the  A^'utiean,  contains  nothing  incompatible 
with  the  cordial  reception  of  the  scriptural  method  of  salva- 
tion. This,  the  real  point  in  dispute,  he  has  wisely  left 
untouched,  and  has  wasted  all  his  strength  upon  another — 
that  Rome  })roclaims  certain  propositions  from  which,  sep- 
arately taken,  the  essence  of  the  Gospel  may  be  drawn.' 

His  second  argument,  founded  on  the  concession  that 
there  are  true  believers  in  the  Papacy,  is  not  less  fallacious 
than  the  first.^  It  proceeds  upon  the  assumption  that  they 
were  made  Christians  by  the  creed  they  ostensibly  profess 
in  the  sense  which  that  Church  teaches  and  requires  her 
children  to  adopt;  that  is,  it  begs  the  very  question  in  dis- 
pute. If  these  true  believers  reject,  in  their  hearts,  the 
complicated  system  of  the  Pope,  and  were  instrumentally 
converted  by  a  different  Gospel  from  that  of  Trent,  the 
truth  of  their  piety  is  no  proof  that  the  Romish  creed  is 
saving.  Now  it  is  certainly  possible  to  be  in  Rome  and 
not  to  be  of  Rome — to  be  in  nominal  connection  witli  the 
Church  without  believing  its  creed;  and  that  this  is  the 
precise  condition  of  true  believers  in  the  Papacy  is  indi- 

'  Sec  an  able  article  on  the  creeil  uf  Konie,  in  I'apism  in  the  Nineteenth 
Century,  p.  214. 

2  "If  these  prineiples  are  correct,  we  have  only  to  apply  tin  in  to  tlie 
case  in  hand,  and  ask,  Does  the  Church  of  Rome  retain  truth  enonL;h  to 
save  the  soul?  We  do  not  understand  liow  it  is  possible  for  any  Christian 
man  to  answer  this  question  in  the  negative.  They  retain  the  doctrine  of 
Incarnation,  which  we  know,  from  the  infallible  Word  of  God,  is  a  life- 
giving  doctrine.  They  retain  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Tiicy 
teach  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  far  more  fully  and  accurately  tli;m  iinilti- 
tudes  of  professedly  orthodox  Protestants.  They  hold  a  much  higher  doc- 
trine as  to  the  necessity  of  Divine  influence  than  prevails  among  many 
whom  wc  recognize  as  Christians." — Princeton  Review,  Jidy,  IS  I"),  [i.  4G.'3. 

3  "It  is  further  evident  that  the  Church  of  Rome  retains  truth  enough 
to  save  the  soul,  from  the  fact  that  true  helievei's,  who  have  no  other 
means  of  instruction  than  those  therein  afforded,  are  to  he  founil  in  that 
conimuMion.  Wherever  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  are,  there  is  the  Spirit; 
and  wlicrcvcr  the  Spirit  is,  there  is  still  the  Church."— Ibid.,  p.  -K!"). 


342  THE   VALIDITY   OF   THE   BAPTISM 

cated  by  the  intense  anxiety  which,  in  proportion  to  their 
light,  they  generally  feel  to  escape  from  her  borders.  But 
then  they  are  converted  "by  no  other  means  of  instruction 
than  those  aiForded  by  Rome."  The  means  she  affords, 
and  the  use  to  which  the  Sjsirit  of  God  may  turn  them, 
are  quite  distinct.  That  the  Holy  Ghost  should  bring 
light  out  of  darkness  and  truth  out  of  error  is  proof  of 
His  own  power  and  grace,  but  none  that  darkness  is  light 
and  error  is  truth.  The  godly  in  Babylon  are  saved  by 
the  mercy  of  our  heavenly  Father,  in  having  their  atten- 
tion diverted  from  her  monstrous  corruptions,  and  fixed 
upon  those  propositions  which,  scattered  up  and  down  in 
her  formularies,  may  be  made  to  suggest  ideas  not  by  any 
meaus  contemplated  in  the  real  creed  of  the  Church.  It 
is  the  force  of  the  truth  that  is  ostensibly  retained  by  Rome, 
applied  by  the  Spirit  in  a  sense  which  Rome  expressly 
repudiates,  which  delivers  these  men  from  the  po^^-er  of 
Satan,  and  introduces  them  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  They 
are  saved  in  spite  of  her  creed. 

But,  says  the  Reviewer,  these  men  evince  the  fruits  of 
the  Spirit,  and  "  wherever  the  Spirit  is,  there  is  still  the 
Church."  I  cheerfully  concede  that  wherever  a  true  church 
is,  there  is  the  Spirit,  but  I  am  not  prepared  to  convert  the 
proposition  without  a  limitation.  If  the  Spirit  is  only  in 
the  Church,  how  are  men  to  be  convei'ted  from  the  world  ? 
The  Bible  requires  them  to  be  believers  before  they  can 
belong  to  the  Church ;  they  cannot  be  believers  without  the 
Spirit;  and  according  to  Princeton  they  cannot  have  the 
Spirit,  unless  they  are  in  the  Church.  So  that  those  who 
are  without  are  in  a  truly  jiitiable  dilemma.  They  cannot 
have  the  Spirit  because  they  are  not  in  the  Church;  they 
cannot  belong  to  the  Church  because  they  liave  not  the 
S])irit.  What,  then,  is  to  become  of  them?  It  is  our 
unspeakable  comfort  that  the  Bible  knows  nothing  of  the 
Princeton  doctrine  ujion  this  point.  The  Holy  Gliost  is  a 
Sovereign,  working  when,  where  and  how  He  chooses.  In 
the  lowest  depths  of  Paganism,  in  the  dungeons  of  crime. 


OF  THE   CHURCH   OF   ROME.  343 

amid  Hindoo  temples  and  Indian  pagodas,  in  the  darkest 
chambers  of  imagery,  as  well  as  the  congregation  of  Chris- 
tian people,  He  may  be  traced  accomplishing  the  end  of 
election,  and  preparing  the  vessels  of  mercy  destined  from 
eternity  to  glory.  He  works  as  well  out  of  the  Chnrch  as 
in  the  Church.  He  knows  no  limits  but  His  sovereignty, 
no  rule  but  the  counsel  of  His  will.  Wherever  He  is,  there 
are  life  and  grace,  because  there  is  union  with  the  Son  of 
God.  There,  too,  is  a  membership  in  the  invisible  Church; 
but  it  is  an  act  of  the  believer,  subsequent  to  his  conversion, 
and  founded  upon  it,  to  seek  a  corresponding  membership 
in  that  visible  congregation  to  which  the  ordinances  are 
given.  True  faith  will  engender  the  desire  to  be  connected 
with  the  true  Church,  and  hence  converted  Papists  are, 
for  the  most  part,  eager  to  renounce  the  Mother  of  harlots, 
as  those  called  from  the  world  are  anxious  to  renounce  it. 

I  have  now  examined  the  arguments  by  which  the  Re- 
viewer would  prove  that  the  Romish  creed  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  a  saving  interest  in  Christ,  and  the  reader,  I 
trust,  is  prepared  to  render  the  verdict,  They  are  found  Avant- 
ing.  For  aught  that  appears,  this  creed  may  belong  to  that 
species  of  heresy  which,  without  directly  denying,  subverts 
the  foundation  by  subtlety  and  fraud.  It  may  take  away 
our  Lord,  not  by  gross  and  open  violence,  but  by  stratagem 
and  craft ;  it  may,  like  Judas,  betray  the  Son  of  Man  with 
a  kiss.  This  was  the  opinion  of  the  General  Assembly.  It 
was  on  the  ground  of  heresy,  fatal,  damnable  heresy,  that 
Rome  was  declared  to  be  apostate  and  her  ordinances  pro- 
nounced to  be  invalid. 

It  was  indeed  asserted,  and  asserted  in  full  consistency 
with  this  explanation  of  the  issue,  that  she  does  not  retain 
truth  enough  to  save  the  soul.  The  meaning  was,  that  the 
system  resulting  from  the  combination  of  her  trutlis  and 
errors,  the  rea^  creed  which  i.s  the  prochirt  of  these  jarring 
and  discordant  elements,  as  developed  by  herself  in  the 
accounts  of  the  plan  of  salvation,  leaves  so  little  scope  for 
the  operation  of  any  of  the  distinctive  doctrines  of  the  Gos- 


344  THE   VALIDITY   OF   THE   BAPTISM 

pel,  according  to  their  native  tendencies,  that  the  impression 
made  upon  the  heart  is  not  that  of  the  truth,  ])ut  of  a  lie. 
In  the  compound  whole  there  is  too  little  truth  practically- 
efficacious,  or  capable  of  being  practically  efficacious,  to 
resist  the  working  of  the  deadly  errors.  The  poison  is  too 
strong  for  the  healthful  medicine.  The  Romish  creed  is  a 
mixture  of  incongruous  materials.  Among  these  materials 
some  truth  is  found,  but  in  the  tendencies  of  the  mixture 
the  characteristics  of  the  truth  are  so  lost  and  blended  that 
it  fails  to  preserve  its  distinctive  properties  or  to  produce 
its  distinctive  effects.  It  was  only  in  this  aspect  of  the 
case  that  she  was  regarded  as  retaining  too  little  truth  to 
save  the  soul,  and  that  in  this  sense  the  imjiutation  is  just 
I  shall  endeavour  by  God's  grace  to  prove. 

The  substance  of  the  Gospel  is  compendiously  embraced 
by  John,^  under  the  threefold  record  of  the  Spirit,  the 
AYater  and  the  Blood ;  in  which  phraseology  of  his  Epistle 
there  is  obviously  a  reference  to  the  circumstance  he  very  par- 
ticularly mentions  in  the  Gospel  of  the  miraculous  effusion 
from  the  Saviour's  side  when  pierced  by  the  spear  of  the 
soldier.  The  Water  and  the  Blood  I  take  to  be  emblem- 
atical expressions  of  the  two  great  divisions  of  the  work 
which  the  Redeemer  came  to  accomplish.  They  define  the 
nature  and  specify  the  elements  of  that  salvation  which  He 
dispenses  to  His  disciples.  A  change  of  state  and  a  change 
of  character,  justification  and  sanctificatiou,  both  equally 
indispensable,  are  the  immediate  benefits  of  the  covenant 
of  grace.  The  change  of  state  is  fitly  represented  by  the 
Blood,  an  emblem  of  that  death  which  consummated  obe- 
dience to  a  broken  law,  satisfied  its  awful  curse,  brought  in 
an  everlasting  righteousness,  and  reconciled  the  pardon  and 
acceptance  of  sinners  with  the  justice  of  God.  The  change 
of  character  is  with  equal  fitness  represented  by  the  Water, 
the  scriptural  symbol  of  purity  and  holiness,  the  washing 
of  regeneration  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
When,  therefore,  it  is  said  that  the  Redeemer  came  by 
1  1  John  V.  8 ;  compare  Gospel,  xix.  34. 


OF   THE    CirURCII    OF    KOME.  345 

Water  and  by  Blood,  not  by  Water  only,  but  by  "Water 
and  by  Blood,  the  meaning  is  that  He  came  to  justify  and 
sanctify;  not  simply  to  restore  to  men  the  lost  image  of 
God  by  the  infusion  of  grace,  but,  as  the  foundation  of  every 
other  blessing,  to  restore  them  to  the  lost  favour  of  God  by 
the  merit  of  His  death.  The  Apostle  guards  us  against 
the  defective  view  of  His  work  which  overlooks  the  Blood, 
which  confounds  jiardon  and  holiness,  righteousness  infused 
and  righteousness  imjiuted.  As  He  came  by  both,  the  integ- 
rity of  the  Gospel  requires  both  ;  and  as  they  flowed  simul- 
taneously and  in  consequence  of  the  same  act  from  His 
side,  so  they  are  indissolubly  joined  together  in  the  expe- 
rience of  the  faithful,  and  are  imparted  without  confusion, 
and  yet  without  division,  to  all  who  are  called  by  God's 
grace.  The  Spirit,  on  the  other  hand,  indicates  the  process 
by  Avhich  these  benefits,  the  Water  and  the  Blood,  justifica- 
tion and  sanctific<ition,  are  applied  to  men.  It  is  a  com- 
pendious phrase,  as  I  understand  it,  for  the  whole  of  experi- 
mental religion.  The  Apostle  rejiresents  the  Spirit  as  bearing 
witness  to  the  fact  that  Jesus  came  by  AVater  and  by  Blood, 
which,  I  suppose,  is  done  in  that  inward  work  of  grace 
which  convinces  sinners  of  their  guilt  and  misery,  enlight- 
ens their  minds  in  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  unites  them  to 
Him  by  a  living  faith,  and  seals  upon  their  hearts  a  full 
persuasion  that  they  are  born  of  God.  ^^^hen  the  Spirit, 
the  Water  and  the  Blood  are  all  found  in  their  scriptural 
meaning  and  their  scriptural  proportions  in  any  creed,  that 
creed  is  a  saving  one ;  and  error  in  regard  to  any  one  of 
them  singly,  or  their  mutual  relations  to  each  other,  is 
always  dangerous,  and  may  be  fatal.  He  that  gives  us  the 
Blood  without  the  Water  is  an  Antinomian  ;  he  that  retains 
the  Water  without  the  Blood  is  a  Legalist;  and  he  who, 
cither  admitting  or  rtjecting  the  Water  and  Blood,  discards 
the  Spirit,  is  a  Pelagian.  Our  Saviour  has  settled  the  ques- 
tion that  Antinomians*  as  such  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  Paul  has  taught  us  that  Pharisees  and 
'  Matt.  V.  lU. 


346.  THE   VALIDITY    OF   THE    BAPTISM 

Legalists  are  fallen  from  grace/  and  Pelagians  from  the 
very  nature  of  the  case  exclude  themselves  from  Christ. 
These  heresies  are  deadly,  in  irreconcilable  opposition  to 
the  characteristic  principles  of  the  Gospel,  and  any  creed 
which  derives  its  shape  and  form  from  them,  or  is  a  consist- 
ent development  of  any  of  them,  must  be  regarded  as  fatal. 
No  man  can  be  saved  by  such  a  creed.  It  is  true  that  men 
professing  to  believe  it  may  be  saved,  for  they  may  really 
embrace  j)rinciples  in  their  hearts  widely  removed  from  the 
verbal  declaration  of  the  lips.  But  Antinomianism,  Legal- 
ism, Pelagianism  never  did,  never  can  save  any  one ;  and 
he  who  in  fact  as  well  as  in  form  rests  upon  either  of  these 
systems  is,  if  there  be  truth  in  the  Bible,  building  his  house 
ujDon  the  sand. 

In  attempting  to  determine  the  question  whether  a  creed 
is  a  saving  one,  our  attention  must  be  directed  to  two  points : 
AVhat  are  the  benefits  which  it  proposes  to  communicate, 
and  how  are  these  benefits  dispensed?  A  creed  may  be 
obviously  sound  as  to  what  constitutes  salvation,  and  yet 
grossly  at  fault  as  to  hoio  it  is  to  be  obtained.  Justification 
and  sanctification  may  be  properly  exhibited  in  their  scrip- 
tural meaning  as  the  great  blessings  of  the  Gospel,  and  yet 
union  with  Christ,  through  whom  alone  we  partake  of 
them,  may  be  made  to  turn  upon  a  principle  which  Chris- 
tianity does  not  recognize,  and  which  must  infallibly  defeat 
the  hopes  of  all  who  rely  on  it.  Who  would  pronounce 
that  a  saving  creed  which,  while  it  commends  Christ  as  the 
ultimate  Saviour  of  the  lost,  teaches  that  union  with  Him 
is  effected  by  carnal  ablutions,  by  periodic  fasts,  by  alms  and 
penances ;  which  promises  eternal  life  to  every  ascetic  who 
will  starve  on  Fridays,  flog  himself  on  Mondays,  and  give 
tithes  of  all  he  possesses ;  which  insists  that  the  mere  doing 
of  such  things  is  all  that  God  requires  to  make  men  par- 
takers of  Christ,  and  is  infallibly  connected  with  all  the 
benefits  of  the  new  and  everlasting  covenant  ?  AVho  would 
dare  to  say  that  such  a  creed  is  a  saving  one  ?  It  sets  forth 
1  Gal.  V.  2,  3,  4. 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  347 

indeed  a  true  Saviour,  but  it  preaches  a  false  Gospel;  it 
embraces  mauy  precious  and  glorious  truths  about  Christ, 
but  it  can  never  avail  to  introduce  the  sinner  into  fellowship 
with  Clirist.  Should  it  be  conceded,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment, that  Home  confesses  in  her  symbols  the  true  nature 
of  justilication  and  sanctitication,  that  she  insists  alike  upon 
the  reality  of  the  atonement  and  the  necessity  of  holiness, 
yet  her  creed  would  not  be  proved  to  be  a  saving  one  unless 
it  were  likewise  shown  that  she  inculcates  the  scriptural 
method  of  union  with  the  Son.  The  AVater  and  the  Blood 
can  never  reach  us  except  through  the  Spirit.  It  avails  lit- 
tle to  be  taught  ivhat  salvation  is,  if  we  are  not  further 
instructed  how  salvation  may  be  had.  In  regard  to  both 
points,  however,  Rome  is  fundamentally  in  error.  She 
denies  alike  the  Blood  and  the  Spirit,  and  even  the  AVater 
which  she  professes  to  retain  is  so  miserably  defiled  that  it 
can  hardly  be  received  as  a  stream  from  Siloah's  brook. 

(1.)  She  denies  the  Blood.  The  Apostle,  it  would  almost 
seem,  had  a  prospective  reference  to  her  heresy  when  he  added 
so  emphatically  that  Jesus  came  not  by  AVater  only,  but  by 
AA^ater  and  by  Blood.  The  great  cardinal  doctrine  of  Chris- 
tianity, so  clearly  revealed,  so  earnestly  inculcated  and  so 
variously  illustrated,  that  of  justification  by  grace,  is  robbed 
in  her  creed  of  all  that  is  distinctively  evangelical  and  pre- 
cious. The  peculiarity  of  the  Gospel  is  not  that  it  teaches 
justification — the  Law  had  done  this  before — but  that  it 
teaches  justification  by  grace.  Here  lie  the  glory  of  the 
Cross  and  the  hopes  of  man.  This  is  precisely  the  point 
at  which  Rome  begins  to  pervert  the  truth.  She  does  not 
object  to  justification,  but  justification  by  grace  she  cannot 
abide.  AVhere  the  Gospel  enters  Rome  protests.  Unfor- 
tunately for  those  who  can  trace  in  her  features  the  linea- 
ments of  a  true  church,  the  only  justification  she  admits  is 
essentially  that  which  Paul  declares  impossible  to  man — 
justification  by  works.  Grace,  in  its  scriptural  acceptation, 
at  least  when  used  in  connection  with  this  subject,  she 
entirely  repudiates  as  the  source  of  all  licentiousness,  and 


348  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

sends  its  advocates  to  hell.  She  is  not  content  to  put  forth 
essentially  another  Gospel,  but  she  must  needs  belch  forth 
her  anathemas  against  the  true  Gospel  of  the  blessed  God. 

There  can  be  no  question  that  when  the  Scriptures  affirm 
that  justification  is  by  grace,  they  mean  that  it  jjroceeds 
from  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus,  without  any  refer- 
ence to  personal  obedience  or  inherent  righteousness.  To  be 
justified  freely  by  God's  grace  is  to  be  justified  without  the 
deeds  of  the  law.  To  be  saved  by  grace  is  to  be  saved  in- 
dependently of  works,  lest  any  man  should  boast.  "  And  if 
by  grace,  then  it  is  no  more  of  works ;  otherwise  grace  is  no 
more  grace.  But  if  it  be  of  works,  then  it  is  no  more 
grace ;  otherwise  work  is  no  more  work."  This,  then,  is  a 
settled  point,  that  grace,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  enters  into 
the  scriptural  doctrine  of  justification,  excludes  all  reference 
to  our  own  performances ;  and  any  creed  which  attributes 
our  acceptance,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  to  works  of  right- 
eousness which  we  have  done,  denies  the  grace  of  the  Gospel. 
Grace  and  works  cannot  be  amalgamated ;  the  law  and  the 
Gospel  are  fundamentally  distinct.  From  the  very  nature 
of  the  case,  a  compound  system  which  proposes  to  justify 
us  partly  by  one  and  partly  by  the  other  involves  a 
contradiction  in  terms.  "Behold,  I  Paul  say  unto  you, 
that  if  ye  be  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing. 
For  I  testify  again  to  every  man  that  is  circumcised  that 
he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law.  Christ  is  become  of  no 
effect  mito  you,  whosoever  of  you  are  justified  by  the  law ; 
ye  are  fallen  from  grace."  To  rely  at  all  upon  personal 
obedience  is  to  appeal  to  the  justice  and  not  to  the  mercy  of 
God.  The  argument  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Komans,  to  prove 
the  ultimate  triumph  of  believers  over  sin,  proceeds  on  the 
assumption  that  law  and  grace  are  incapable  of  confusion  or 
mixture.  "Sin,"  says  the  Apostle,  "  shall  not  have  dominion 
over  you ;  for  ye  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace." 
This  conclusion  would  be  miserably  lame  if  it  were  possible 
to  be  under  both  at  once,  or  in  any  third  state  distinct  from 
each.     There  are,  then,  but  two  conceivable  dispensations — 


OF   THE   CHURCH   OF   ROME.  349 

one  of  law,  the  other  of  grace ;  and  consequently  but  two 
possible  methods  of  justification — one  by  inherent  righteous- 
ness, and  the  other  by  the  free  mercy  of  God.  The  dif- 
ference of  the  two  systems  may  be  placed  in  another  light. 
To  justify  is  to  pronounce  righteous.  A  holy  God  cannot, 
of  course,  declare  that  any  one  is  righteous  unless  he  is 
so.  There  are  no  fictions  of  law  in  the  tribunal  of 
Heaven — all  its  judgments  are  according  to  truth.  A  man 
may  be  righteous  because  he  has  done  righteousness,  and 
then  he  is  justified  by  law ;  or  he  may  be  righteous  because 
he  has  received  righteousness  as  a  gift,  and  then  he  is  justi- 
fied by  grace.  He  may  be  righteous  in  himself,  and  this  is 
the  righteousness  of  works ;  or  he  may  be  righteous  in 
another,  and  this  is  the  righteousness  of  faith.  Hence, 
to  deny  imputed  righteousness  is  either  to  deny  the  pos- 
sibility of  justification  at  all,  or  to  make  it  consist  in  the 
deeds  of  the  law — both  hypotheses  involving  a  rejection  of 
the  grace  of  the  Gospel.  There  are  plainly  but  three  pos- 
sible suppositions  in  the  case :  either  there  is  no  righteous- 
ness in  which  a  sinner  is  accepted,  and  justification  is  simply 
pardon ;  or  it  must  be  the  righteousness  of  God,  without 
the  law ;  or  the  righteousness  of  personal  obedience ; — it 
must  either  be  none,  inherent,  or  imputed.  The  first  and 
last  suppositions  are  both  embraced  by  Rome  in  one  sweeping 
anathema.  "  Justification,"  she  declares,  is  not  "  remission 
of  sin  merely;"  and  subsequently  adds:  "Whosoever  shall 
affirm  that  men  are  justified  solely  by  the  imputation  of 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  or  solely  by  the  remission  of 
sin,  to  the  exclusion  of  grace  and  charity,  which  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  shed  abroad  in  their  hearts,  and  inheres  in 
them,  or  that  the  grace  by  which  we  are  justified  is  only 
the  favour  of  God,  let  him  be  accursed." ' 

She  is  therefore  shut  up  to  the  position  which  she  cheer- 
fully assumes,  that  men  are  accepted  in  their  own  personal 
obedience.     When,  according  to  Bellarmine,^  we  are  said  to 

^  Coiicil.  Trident.,  Sess.  vi.,  cap.  vii.,  Canon  de  Justificat.,  xi. 
^De  Justificat.,  Lib.  ii.,  c.  iii. 


350  THE   VALIDITY   OF   THE    BAPTISM 

be  justified  freely  by  God's  grace,  the  meaning  is  that  we 
arc  justified  by  the  effects  of  His  grace,  or  the  personal 
holiness  it  generates  within  us.  Such  also  was  the  view  of 
Trent  when  it  damned  those  who  resolved  this  grace  into 
the  unmerited  favour  or  free  mercy  of  God.  Eome,  then, 
takes  her  stand  upon  inherent  righteousness.  Justification 
and  sanctification  in  her  vocabulary  are  synonymous  terms, 
and  men  are  justified,  not  by  grace,  but  by  their  graces. 
"  The  sole  formal  cause"  of  justification,  says  Trent,  "  is  the 
rio-hteousness  of  God:  not  that  by  which  He  Himself  is 
righteous,  but  that  by  which  He  makes  us  righteous ;  with 
which,  ])eing  endued  by  Him,  we  are  renewed  in  the  spirit 
of  our  mind,  and  are  not  only  accounted  righteous,  but  are 
properly  called  righteous,  and  are  so,  receiving  righteousness 
in  ourselves,  each  according  to  his  measure,  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  bestows  upon  each  as  He  wills,  and  according  to  our 
respective  dispositions  and  co-operation."  "Justification," 
it  is  previously  said,^  "  is  not  remission  of  sin  merely,  but 
also  sanctification  and  the  renewal  of  the  inner  man  by  the 
voluntary  reception  of  grace  and  Divine  gifts,  so  that  he 
who  was  unrighteous  is  made  righteous;  and  the  enemy 
becomes  a  friend  and  an  heir  according  to  the  hope  of  eter- 
nal life."  "  The  state  of  the  whole  controversy,"  says  Bel- 
larmine,^  "  may  be  reduced  to  this  simple  question — whether 
the  formal  cause  of  absolute  justification  be  inherent  right- 
eousness or  not  ?  To  prove  the  aifirmative  is,  at  the  same 
time,  to  refute  all  contrary  errors.  For  if  the  formal  cause 
of  justification  is  inherent  righteousness,  it  is  not,  of  course, 
the  indwelling  righteousness  of  God,  nor  the  imputed 
righteousness  of  Christ,  nor  solely  the  remission  of  sin, 
without  the  renovation  of  the  inner  man.  And  if  inherent 
righteousness  is  the  fi)rmal  cause  of  absolute  justification, 
then  of  course  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  is 
not  required,  which  would  dispense  with  an  inchoate  and 
imperfect  justification.  Neither  is  faith  alone  our  righteous- 
ness ;  since  faith,  the  Lutherans  themselves  being  witnesses, 
1  Concil.  Trident.,  Sess.  vi.,  c.  vii.  -  De  Justificat.,  Lib.  ii.,  c.  ii. 


OF   THE   CHURCH   OF   ROME.  351 

cannot  absolutely  justify,  and  therefore,  according  to  the 
fourth  article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  is  not  reputed  as 
righteousness  by  God.  And  so  none  of  these  errors  are 
placed  for  inherent,  but  only  for  extrinsic,  righteousness ;  or 
if  they  admit  inherent,  they  deny  that  it  absolutely  justifies. 
They  will  all,  consequently,  be  refuted  by  proving  that 
what  simply  and  absolutely  justifies  is  inherent  righteous- 
ness." This  being  the  doctrine  of  Rome,  I  have  no  hesita- 
tion in  saying  that  it  amounts  to  a  complete  subversion  of 
the  Gosjjel.  It  substitutes  laiv  for  grace,  works  for  the  sov- 
ereign mercy  of  God.  It  embraces  the  characteristic  prin- 
ciple of  a  legal  dispensation,  and  renders  the  blood  of 
Christ  of  no  effect.  JThe  Scriptures  teach  that  the  grace  by 
which  we  are  justified  excludes  all  reference  to  our  own 
works ;  Rome  affirms  that  its  immediate  office  is  to  produce 
them,  and  that  it  actually  justifies  only  in  so  far  as  it  pro- 
duces them.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  the  obedience  of 
Christ,  freely  imputed  to  us  of  God,  constitutes  the  righteous- 
ness in  which  we  are  accepted.  Rome  asserts  that  our  own 
obedience,  achieved  by  the  exercise  of  our  own  free  wills 
in  co-operation  with  the  Spirit  of  God,  is  the  only  righteous- 
ness in  which  we  can  appear.  The  difference  is  certainly 
fundamental — precisely  the  difference  between  a  covenant  of 
works  and  a  covenant  of  grace.  Now  my  argument  is  a 
short  one.  No  creed  which  teaches  justification  by  the 
deeds  of  the  law  can  be  a  saving  one.  The  proof  is  the 
positive  declaration  of  the  Apostle  that  the  thing  is  impossi- 
ble, and  that  as  many  as  are  under  the  law  are  under  the 
curse.  But  Rome  teaches  justification  by  the  deeds  of  the 
law,  and  the  proof  is  that  she  makes  inherent  righteousness 
or  works  the  immediate  ground  of  acceptance.  Therefore 
the  creed  of  Rome  cannot  be  a  saving  one. 

The  second  jiroposition  in  this  argument  is  the  only  one, 
I  apprehend,  that  can  create  any  (lilliculty — that  justifica- 
tion by  inherent  righteousness  is  justification  l)y  tlie  deeds 
of  the  law.  To  my  jnind,  however,  it  rests  upon  sure  war- 
rant of  Scripture. 


352  THE   VALIDITY   OF   Tilt:   BAPTISM 

Paul  declares,  as  we  have  seen,  that  there  are  but  two 
methods  of  justification;  and  as  they  are  the  immediate 
contraries  of  each  other,  the  characteristic  principle  of  the 
one  must  be  the  opposite  of  the  characteristic  principle  of 
the  other.  The  characteristic  principle  of  grace,  however, 
is,  that  it  excludes  works;  then  the  characteristic  principle 
of  law  must  be  that  it  admits  them.  This  follows  neces- 
sarily from  the  doctrine  of  immediate  contraries.^  If  law 
and  grace  stand  in  this  relation  to  each  other,  as  the  Apostle 
teaches,  and  it  is  the  distinctive  peculiarity  of  grace  to  reject 
works,  it  must  necessarily  be  the  distinctive  peculiarity  of 
law  to  require  them.  If  whatsoever  is  not  of  works  is 
grace,  then  whatsoever  is  of  works  is  law.  Inherent  right- 
eousness most  certainly  does  not  exclude  or  reject  works; 
then  it  must  admit  and  require  them,  and  consequently 
must  be  brought  under  the  category  of  law. 

The  evasion  of  Rome,  that  the  works  which  are  excluded 
are  only  those  which  precede  faith  and  justification,  and  are 
consequently  destitute  of  merit,  is  nothing  Avorth.^  The 
expression  of  the  Apostle  applies  indiscriminately  to  all 
works  performed  with  a  view  to  Divine  acceptance ;  and 
as  to  merit,  the  word  and  the  thing  in  the  relations  of  the 
creature  to  God  are  both  equally  unknown  to  the  Bible. 
According  to  Bellarmine,'  the  works  excluded  are  those 
which  are  performed  in  the  strength  of  nature  without  the 
assistance  of  grace.  "Gratuitous  justification,"  he  informs 
us,  "  docs  not  exclude  merits  absolutely,  but  only  those  which 
are  proper,  Avhich  proceed  from  ourselves  and  not  from 
God."  Hence,  the  justification  which  takes  place  in  conse- 
quence of  works  produced  by  grace  is  as  truly  justification 
by  grace  as  that  which  takes  place  independently  of  works. 
We  may  accordingly  be  justified  freely  without  the  deeds 
of  the  law,  and  yet  be  justified  by  the  inherent  righteous- 

^Paul  reasons  upon  this  principle  in  the  4th  chap.  Hebrews.  See 
Owen's  commentary  on  the  3d  verse. 

■^  This  is  the  evasion  of  Trent,  Sess.  vi.,  cap.  viii. 

^  De  Justificat.,  Lib.  i.,  cap.  xxi. ;  comp.  cap.  ix.  of  the  same  booli. 


OF   THE   CHURCH    OF    ROME.  353 

ness  which  the  Spirit  effects  within  us.  This  sophistry,  to 
which  the  wily  Jesuit  again  and  again  recurs,  is  a  miserable 
play  upon  the  ambiguity  of  the  word  grace.  There  are  two 
senses  in  which  it  is  used :  in  one,  which,  so  far  as  I  know, 
is  seldom  or  never  found  in  the  Scriptures,  it  implies  those 
operations  of  the  Spirit  which  are  connected  with  holiness ; 
in  the  other  it  denotes  the  sovereign  mercy  or  unmerited 
favour  of  God.  Now  in  this  first  sense  it  is  never  opposed 
to  law.  If  it  were,  justification  by  law  would  be,  under  all 
circumstances  and  to  all  classes  of  creatures,  hopelessly  im- 
possible. On  the  contrary,  a  legal  dispensation,  until  its 
disadvantages  are  forfeited  by  failure,  necessarily  implies 
that  degree  of  grace  which  shall  fit  its  subjects  to  render  the 
obedience  exacted.  It  would  shock  all  our  notions  of  jus- 
tice, it  would  be  gross  and  revolting  tyranny,  to  create 
beings  wholly  unfurnished  for  a  work,  and  yet  demand  it 
from  them  as  the  condition  of  life.  Whatever  may  be  the 
law  which  God  in  the  first  instance  prescribes  to  His  crea- 
tures, He  imparts  to  them  strength  abundantly  adequate  to 
keep  it.  Adam  was  unquestionably  placed  under  an  econ- 
omy of  works.  If  he  had  kept  his  first  estate  and  been 
justified,  he  would  have  been  justified  as  a  doer  of  the  law ; 
and  yet  the  ability  with  which  he  was  endowed  in  his  first 
creation  was  as  truly  from  God  as  that  which  the  saints 
receive  at  their  new  creation  in  Christ  Jesus.  Hence,  it  is 
evident  that  obedience  does  not  cease  to  be  legal  because  it 
is  rendered  by  Divine  aid.  To  be  justified  by  graces  is  not 
to  be  justified  by  grace.  The  proud  Pharisee  attributed  to 
God  his  superiority  to  other  men.  It  was  by  grace  that  he 
professed  to  have  performed  his  alms,  penances  and  devo- 
tions, yet  with  all  his  pretended  gratitude  and  love  he  was 
a  legalist  at  heart.  Legalism  and  Pelagianism,  though  gen- 
erally coexistent,  are  not  necessarily  the  same.  That  obe- 
dience is  legal  which  is  performed  with  a  view  to  justifica- 
tion, whatever  may  be  the  strength  in  which  it  is  achieved. 
It  is  the  end,  and  not  the  source  of  it,  that  determines  its 
character.     And  that  is  a  legal  disjiensation  which  }»rescribes 

Vol.  III.— 23 


354  THE   VALIDITY   OF   THE   BAPTISM 

a  law,  and  attaches  the  promise  of  eternal  life  to  conformity 
with  its  precepts.  To  give  the  law  is  an  act  of  grace,  but 
to  dispense  the  reward  when  the  obedience  has  been  ren- 
dered is  the  discharge  of  a  debt  which  God's  faithfulness 
has  imposed  upon  His  justice.  The  obedience  itself,  not 
the  strength  in  which  it  has  been  performed,  is  all  that  the 
law  contemplates.  If  it  demanded  a  particular  kind  of 
obedience,  then  that  would  be  a  part  of  the  precept,  and 
consequently  no  true  obedience  could  be  rendered  if  the 
kind  in  question  were  withheld.  The  law  looks  to  nothing, 
and  can  look  to  nothing,  but  the  fact  that  the  obedience  it 
requires  is  given  or  denied,  and  it  rewards  or  punishes 
accordingly.  To  resolve  justification,  consequently,  into 
inherent  righteousness,  how  sincerely  soever  that  righteous- 
ness may  be  attributed  to  the  grace  of  God,  is  to  resolve  it 
into  the  deeds  of  the  law.  The  man  who  is  justified,  there- 
fore, upon  the  principles  of  Rome  is  as  truly  justified  by 
works  as  Adam  would  have  been  if  he  had  kept  his  integ- 
rity. Adam's  original  nature  was  as  much  the  offspring 
of  God  as  the  believer's  new  nature.  Adam  was  free  to 
fall,  and  so,  according  to  Rome,  is  every  true  believer,  good 
works  being  the  result  of  our  Malls  co-operating  with  grace. 
Adam  was  able  to  stand  in  consequence  of  what  God  had 
done  for  him,  and  so  are  the  faithful  of  Rome.  Adam's 
life  depended  upon  personal  obedience,  and  so,  says  Rome, 
does  the  salvation  of  the  saints.  The  parallel  is  perfect, 
and  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  Rome  utterly  rejects 
the  Gospel  as  a  dispensation  of  grace,  and  turns  all  its  glor- 
ious provisions  into  a  covenant  of  works. 

But  what  sets  the  legalism  of  Rome  in  a  still  stronger 
light  is  the  estimate  which  she  puts  upon  the  performances 
of  men,  achieved  through  the  co-operation  of  their  own 
wills  with  the  stimulating  grace  of  God ;  for  it  is,  after  all,  but 
a  partial  agency  that  her  creed  attributes  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Tenacious  of  what  the  Schoolmen  denominate  the  merit 
of  conr/ruity,  she  distinctly  teaches  tliat  men  in  the  exercise 
of  their  own  free  wills,  concurring  with  the  grace  of  God, 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  355 

prepare  aucl  dispose  themselves  for  justificatiou/  God  gives 
theiu  tlie  ability  to  work,  but  it  depends  upon  themselves 
Avhether  or  not  they  will  improve  it.  The  diligent  are 
rewarded  with  larger  accessions  of  strength,  until  finally 
"  they  resolve  to  receive  baptism,  to  begin  a  new  life  and 
to  keep  the  Divine  commandments."  Then  the  critical 
point  is  reached,  they  are  fully  prepared  to  be  justified,  they 
have  done  well,  and  deserve  ex  congruo  the  august  benefit.  If 
this  detestable  combination  of  the  pride  of  the  Pelagian  and 
the  haughtiness  of  the  Pharisee  can  be  termed  grace,  then  it 

"  Is  of  all  our  vanities  the  motliest, 
The  merest  word  that  ever  fooled  the  ear 
From  out  the  Schoolman's  jargon." 

My  soul  sickens  at  the  blasphemy  that  men,  independ- 
ently of  union  with  Christ,  can  bring  themselves  into  a 
state  in  which,  though  they  have  no  claim  upon  the  justice 
of  God,  they  have  a  claim  upon  His  sense  of  decency — in 
which  He  cannot  refuse  to  receive  them  into  favour  with- 
out the  perpeti-ation  of  an  ugly  deed. 

A  system  which  can  find  a  place  for  such  a  doctrine  stum- 
bles on  the  very  threshold  of  Christianity,  and  those  who 
can  embrace  it  are  strangers  to  what  be  the  first  principles 
of  the  Oracles  of  God.  But  the  climax  of  iniquity  and 
legalism  is  reached  in  the  odious  dogma  first  broached  in 
the  Schools,  subsequently  incorporated  into  the  public  sym- 
bols of  the  church,  and  audaciously  defended  by  her  most 
distinguished  divines,  that  the  good  w^orks  of  the  faithful 
are  truly  and  properly  meritorious  upon  principles  of  jus- 
tice, so  that  God  cannot  fail  to  reward  them  without  the 
surrender  of  His  holiness.  "  We  shall  therefore  prove," 
says  Bellarmine,^  "  what  all  Catholics  believe,  that  the  good 
works  of  the  just  are  truly  and  properly  merits,  deserving 
not  of  any  reward  that  may  be,  but  of  eternal  life  itself." 
"It  is  the  will  of  God,"  he  declares,^  "that  His  chil- 
dren who  have  the  use  of  reason  should  acquire  eternal  life 

1  Concil.  Trident.,  Sess.  vi.,  cap.  vi.,  can.  iv. 

2  De  Justificat.,  Lib.  v.,  cap.  i.  ^  Ibid.,  cap.  iii. 


356  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

by  their  own  labours  and  merits,  so  that  it  may  be  due  to 
them  by  a  double  title — a  title  of  inheritance  and  a  right  of 
reward — since  it  is  more  honourable  to  obtain  by  merit  than 
by  free  gift  alone ;  God,  that  He  might  honour  Plis  sons, 
has  so  arranged  it  that  they  can  procure  eternal  life  for 
themselves  by  their  own  merits."  The  merit  of  these  w^orks, 
we  are  further  instructed,  dcj^ends  partly  upon  the  promise 
of  God,  His  own  sovereign  appointment  which  brings  Him 
under  an  obligation  of  debt  to  reward  them,  and  partly 
upon  their  own  intrinsic  excellence.^  "Whosoever  shall 
affirm,"  says  Trent,  "that  the  good  works  of  a  justified  man 
are  in  such  sense  the  gifts  of  God  that  they  are  not  also  his 
own  good  merits,  or  that  he  being  justified  by  his  good 
works  which  are  wrought  by  him,  through  the  grace  of 
God  and  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ,  of  whom  he  is  a  living 
member,  does  not  really  deserve  increase  of  grace,  eternal 
life,  the  enjoyment  of  that  eternal  life  and  also  increase  of 
glory  if  he  dies  in  a  state  of  grace,  let  him  be  accursed."  ^ 

With  such  statements  before  him,  how  can  any  man  who 
has  any  adequate  conceptions  of  the  distinction  between 
law  and  grace  hesitate  for  a  moment  to  affirm  that  the  sys- 
tem of  Rome  is  eminently  legal — that,  like  the  Jews  of 
old,  she  goes  about  to  establish  her  own  righteousness,  and 
refuses  to  submit  to  the  righteousness  of  God  ?  She  requires 
works ;  these  works  are  to  be  done  wdth  a  view  to  justifica- 
tion and  eternal  life,  and  not  only  obtain  but  deserve  both 
in  consequence  of  the  compact  of  God  and  their  own  inhe- 
rent excellence.  If  this  be  not  law,  it  would  be  hard  to 
specify  an  economy  that  is,  and  if  it  be  law,  how  can  the 
inference  be  avoided  that  it  can  save  none  who  rely  on  its 
provisions  ?  Is  there  a  man  who  can  lay  his  hand  upon  his 
heart  and  say  that  he  honestly  believes  that  any  sinner  can 
consistently  with  the  Scriptures  be  accepted  in  the  righteous- 
ness in  Avhich  Rome  says  he  must  be  accepted  before  God  ? 
If  the  Galatians,  by  submitting  to  circumcision,  fell  from 

1  Bellarm.,  De  Justificat.,  Lib.  v.,  cap.  xvii. 
^  De  Justificat.,  can.  xxxii. 


OF   TPIE    CPIURCH    OF    ROME.  357 

grace  and  became  debtors  to  the  whole  law,  what  shall  be 
said  of  those  who  boldly  proclaim  that  heaven  can  be 
bought  by  works,  and  audaciously  put  eternal  life  to  sale  in 
the  market  of  human  merit  ?  If  such  principles  are  sav- 
ing, or  a  creed  can  be  saving  which  admits  them,  in  the 
name  of  truth  and  righteousness  what  creed  on  earth  can 
be  a  damning  one  ? 

In  the  face  of  all  these  clear  and  positive  proofs  of  the 
most  disgusting  legalism,  the  Reviewer  asserts  that  Rome 
"  holds  that  we  are  justified  by  the  merits  of  Christ,"  and 
that  "  she  teaches  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  far  more 
fully  and  accurately  than  multitudes  of  professedly  orthodox 
Protestants."  The  proof  of  these  bold  assumptions  turns 
upon  the  fact  that  Christ  is  uniformly  represented  as  the 
meritorious  cause  of  all  the  blessings  we  receive.  Trent 
says,  in  the  passages  quoted  by  Princeton,  that  "  our  sins 
are  freely  forgiven  us  by  the  Divine  mercy,  for  Christ's 
sake;"  that  "the  meritorious  cause  of  justification  is  the 
well-beloved  and  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  who,  when  we 
were  enemies,  for  the  great  love  wherewith  He  loved  us, 
merited  justification  for  us  by  His  most  holy  passion  on  the 
cross ;  that  Christ,  by  His  most  holy  passion  on  the  cross, 
merited  justification  for  us,  satisfied  God  the  Father  on  our 
behalf;  and  no  one  can  be  righteous  unless  the  merits  of 
the  passion  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  are  communicated 
to  him."  To  these  extracts  are  added  two  sentences  from 
Bellarmine,  one  affirming  that  "  we  are  justified  on  account 
of  the  merits  of  Christ,"  and  the  other,  according  to  the 
Reviewer,  containing  a  true  statement  of  the  scriptural 
doctrine  of  imputation. 

As  to  the  expression,  that  "Christ  is  the  meritorious  cause 
of  pardon  and  accej^tance,"  though  taken  by  itself  and  apart 
from  its  connection  it  might  be  interpreted  as  Princeton 
seems  to  have  understood  it,  yet  Rome  is  far  from  employ- 
ing it  to  denote  our  justifying  righteousness,  or  that  which 
immediately  commends  us  to  God.  She  does  not  mean  to 
teach  that  the  personal   obodience  of  the  Saviour  is   the 


358  THE    VALIDITY    OF   THE    BAPTISM 

ground  on  which  a  sinner  is  declared  to  be  just.  Tliat 
which  constitutes  him  righteous  she  denominates  not  the 
meritorious,  but  the  formal,  cause  of  justification ;  and  as 
til  is  consists  in  the  graces  of  the  Spirit,  whatever  sense 
should  be  attached  to  the  phrase  meritorious  cause,  the  legal 
feature  of  her  system,  inherent  righteousness,  is  by  no  means 
excluded.  But  we  are  not  left  in  darkness  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  phrase  itself.  "  The  merits  of  the  righteous," 
says  Bellarmine,^  "are  not  opposed  to  the  merits  of  Christ, 
but  sjiring  from  them ;  and  whatsoever  praise  the  merits 
of  the  righteous  are  entitled  to  receive  redounds  to  the  glory 
of  the  merits  of  Christ.  He  is  the  Yine,  we  are  the  branches ; 
and  as  the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit  except  it  abide  in  the 
vine,  so  we  can  do  nothing  without  Christ.  And  as  no  one 
was  ever  stupid  enough  to  assert  that  it  detracted  from  the 
glory  of  the  vine  when  its  branches  bore  much  fruit,  so 
none  but  a  fool  would  say  that  it  detracts  from  the  glory 
of  Christ  when  His  servants,  by  His  grace,  by  His  Spirit, 
by  faith  and  charity  inspired  by  Him,  perform  good  works, 
M'hich  are  so  truly  righteous  that  a  crown  of  righteousness 
is  due  to  them  from  a  just  judge.  The  objection  is  Avith- 
out  foundation  that  if  the  merits  of  men  are  required,  those 
of  Christ  are  unnecessary.  For  the  merits  of  men  are  not 
required  on  account  of  the  insufficiency  of  those  of  Christ, 
but  on  account  of  their  very  great  efficacy.  For  the  works 
of  Christ  merited  from  God  not  only  that  we  should  obtain 
salvation,  but  that  we  should  obtain  it  by  our  own  merits; 
or,  what  is  the  same,  they  merited  for  us  not  only  eternal 
life,  but  also  the  power  of  meriting  it  ourselves.  Because 
God  uses  the  sun  to  enlighten  the  world,  fire  to  heat,  and 
wind  and  showers  to  refresh  it,  it  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to 
weakness  as  if  He  were  unable  to  accomplish  these  things 
by  Himself,  without  sun,  fire  or  breeze,  but  to  His  omni- 
potence, by  which  He  is  not  only  able  to  do  these  things 
Himself,  but  also  to  bestow  upon  creatures  the  yiowev  of 
doing  thom." 

1  Do  Justificat.,  T.il).  v.,  cap.  v. 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  359 

"JSTeither  do  our  merits,"  says  Dens/  "diminish  the  vir- 
tue of  those  of  Christ,  as  heretics  yelp,  since  our  merits 
derive  all  their  power  of  meriting  from  those  of  Christ,  as 
the  branches  derive  their  power  of  bearing  fruit  from  the 
vine.  Wherefore  our  merits  commend  the  merits  of  Christ, 
inasmuch  as  He,  by  His  merits,  has  procured  for  us  the  power 
of  meriting."  When,  therefore,  Trent  affirms  that  "  the 
meritorious  cause"  of  justification  is  God's  "  only -begotten 
and  well-beloved  Son,"  she  means  that  the  passion  of  the 
Divine  Eedeemer  has  established  that  dispensation  under 
which  we  are  required  to  procure  salvation  for  ourselves, 
and  are  furnished  with  the  necessary  helps  for  the  arduous 
work.  His  atonement  is  the  immediate  ground  of  pardon 
and  acceptance  to  no  one ;  it  simply  places  the  race  in  a 
new  relation  to  God,  and  that  a  relation  of  law,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  they  can  be  and  do  what  God  exacts  from 
them.  Without  the  death  of  Christ  they  could  not  have 
been  favoured  with  this  new  opportunity  of  life.  His 
merits  have  given  them  another  chance,  but  success  or  failure 
depends  upon  themselves ;  He  merited  justification  by 
meriting  that  their  own  works  should  be  accepted  as  a 
justifying  righteousness.  Hence,  His  passion  is  only  the 
basis  on  which  a  legal  scheme  of  salvation  is  erected  for 
fallen  man,  as  the  goodness  of  God  was  the  basis  on 
which  a  similar  scheme  was  erected  for  man  in  innocence. 
As  God's  kindness  furnished  Adam  and  gave  him  strength 
for  his  first  trial,  so  the  death  of  the  Redeemer  has  insti- 
tuted a  new  trial,  and  fitted  and  qualified  men  to  comply 
with  its  provisions.  Such  is  the  honour  which  Rome  gives 
to  Christ. 

Princeton  says,  however,  that  Rome  as  a  community 
"  holds  that  we  are  justified  by  the  merits  of  Christ." 
This  proposition  I  am  constrained  to  deny.  Some  of  her 
divines  have  held  it,  but  the  Church  in  her  public  symbols, 
in  the  decrees  and  canons  of  Trent,  in  her  authorized  creed, 
has  taught  no  such  principle.  Rome  teaches  that  we  are 
1  Tract.  De  Merito.,  vol.  ii.,  No.  35,  pp.  459,  460. 


360  THE    VALIDITY    OF   THE    BAPTISM 

justified,  in  the  language  of  Bellarmine,  "  on  account  of 
the  merits  of  Christ,"  but  not  by  them.  To  say  that  we 
are  justified  by  them  is  to  affirm  that  they  constitute  the 
righteousness  in  which  we  are  accepted;  to  say  that  we  are 
justified  0)1  account  of  them  is  to  teach  that  they  are  the 
meritorious  cause  of  acceptance  in  the  sense  ah-eady  ex- 
plained. Bellarmine  ^  has  accurately  noted  the  distinction. 
"  In  strict  propriety  of  speech,"  says  he,  "  it  is  not  on  ac- 
count of  (propter),  but  by  (per),  which  is  used  to  designate 
the  formal  cause.  If  one  should  ask  by  what  man  lives, 
by  what  fire  is  warm,  by  what  the  stars  shine,  it  would  be 
rightly  answered  by  the  soul,  by  heat,  by  light,  which  are 
formal  causes.  But  if  he  should  ask  on  account  of  ivhatihe 
commander  triumphs,  on  account  of  what  the  soldiers  fight, 
it  will  be  answered  not  by  assigning  the  formal,  but  the 
meritorious  oy  final,  cause."  Hence  the  first  sentence  which 
Princeton  has  quoted  from  Bellarmine  contains  a  very  dif- 
ferent view  of  justification  from  that  which  she  asserts  that 
the  Papal  community  maintains.  His  own  exposition  of 
his  terms  is  conclusive  proof  that  in  saying  we  are  justified 
on  account  of  the  merits  of  Christ  he  intended  to  deny  that 
we  are  justified  by  them,  or  that  they  constitute  the  right- 
eousness which  immediately  commends  us  to  God.  Of 
precisely  the  same  import  is  the  next  passage.  Occurring 
in  the  midst  of  a  chapter  expressly  devoted  to  the  disproof 
of  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  and  taken  from  a  book  which 
contains  an  elaborate  and  crafty  defence  of  inherent  right- 
eousness, it  cannot,  without  violence  to  the  author  and 
violence  to  its  connection,  be  interpreted  as  Princeton  under- 
stands it.  There  is,  indeed,  no  necessity  for  this  violence. 
All  the  expressions  are  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  dogma 
that  Christ  is  the  meritorious,  in  contradistinction  from  the 
formal,  cause  of  justification.  His  merits  are  given  to  us 
by  being  made  available  to  generate  merits  within  us ;  they 
are  given,  not  by  imputation,  but  by  infusion,  and  what- 
soever efficacy  our  righteousness  possesses,  is  derived  from 
>  De  Justiiicat.,  Lib.  ii.,  c.  2. 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  361 

the  passion  of  Christ.  If  He  had  not  died,  we  should 
neither  have  been  able  to  perform  works  of  righteousness, 
nor  would  works  of  righteousness  have  saved  us.  It  is 
in  consequence  of  what  He  has  done  that  our  own  doings 
are  effectual.  His  merits  are  given  in  the  same  way  that 
His  wisdom  is  given — the  one  to  make  us  meritorious,  as 
the  other  removes  our  ignorance;  and  we  can  present  them 
to  the  Father  for  our  sins  because,  in  consequence  of  them, 
remission  may  be  expected  according  to  the  tenor  of  the 
new  law  under  which  they  have  placed  us.  Our  prayers? 
penances,  satisfactions  and  obedience  could  not  purge  our 
consciences  from  guilt  unless  the  blood  of  the  Redeemer 
had  imparted  this  efficacy  to  them,  as  the  sun  could  dispense 
no  light  without  the  sovereign  appointment  of  God.  Such 
I  take  to  be  the  meaning  of  Bellarmine. 

Of  what  has  been  spoken  upon  the  first  point,  the  denial 
of  the  Blood,  this  then  is  the  sum.  It  has  been  proved,  in 
the  first  place,  from  the  testimony  of  Paul,  that  no  creed 
which  teaches  salvation  by  works  can  be  a  saving  one ;  in 
the  second  place,  that  the  creed  of  Rome  does  teach  it,  be- 
cause she  resolves  our  justifying  righteousness  into  personal 
holiness,  damns  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  audaciously 
proclaims  the  figment  of  human  merit,  both  of  congruity 
and  condignity,  and  makes  Christ  only  the  remote  and  ulti- 
mate cause  of  pardon  and  acceptance.  These  premises  being 
established,  the  conclusion  necessarily  follows  that  the  creed 
of  Rome  cannot  be  a  saving  one.  It  robs  God  of  His 
glory  and  the  Saviour  of  His  honour;  gives  us  ashes  for 
bread,  a  scorpion  for  an  egg,  and  death  for  life. 

(2.)  Rome  corrupts  the  Water.  To  make  acceptance  with 
God  dependent  upon  personal  holiness  is  to  repudiate  the 
distinction  between  depravity  and  guilt,  and  to  endorse  the 
detestable  doctrine  of  the  Socinians,  that  repentance  is  an 
adequate  ground  of  pardon,  since  it  effaces  those  moral 
qualities  the  possession  of  which  is  what  renders  men  liable 
to  punishment.  Rome  and  the  Fratres  Poloni  differ,  not 
in  the  principle  on  which  justification  immediately  proceeds 


362  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

— both  ascribe  it  to  inherent  rigliteousness — but  in  the  source 
■\vlience  the  principle  in  reference  to  the  fallen  derives  its 
efficacy.  The  change  of  character  which  is  sujjposed  to  be 
inseparably  connected  with  the  favour  of  God  and  a  title  to 
happiness  is,  according  to  the  Socinian  hypothesis,  attain- 
able by  the  strength  of  nature  without  the  assistance  of 
grace.  Rome,  on  the  other  hand,  contends  that,  although 
free-will  has  not  been  extinguished  in  men  by  the  Fall, 
they  have  become  so  completely  the  slaves  of  sin  and  the 
subjects  of  the  Devil  that  neither  Jews  nor  Gentiles,  inde- 
pendently of  the  passion  of  Christ  and  the  aid  of  the 
Spirit,  could  be  restored  to  liberty  and  peace.  The  inherent 
righteousness  by  which  we  are  justified  is,  in  the  theology 
of  Rome,  the  infusion  of  grace;  in  the  theology  of  Socinus 
and  his  followers  it  is  the  product  and  offspring  of  nature. 
When  the  question  is  asked  how  we  obtain  it,  these  doctors 
differ ;  but  when  it  is  inquired  what  it  accomplishes  or  ichat 
is  its  office,  Herod  and  Pontius  Pilate  are  agreed;  the  Papist 
and  Socinian  strike  hands  in  harmonious  accord,  impelled 
by  equal  fury  against  the  most  glorious  truth  of  the  glorious 
Gospel  of  the  blessed  God — justification  by  grace.  That 
Avhicli,  according  to  both,  effaces  guilt  and  exempts  from 
punishment  is  the  possession  of  personal  righteousness. 
The  inward  purity  which  expunges  the  stain  obliterates 
the  crime.  Men  cease  to  be  punishable  as  soon  as  they 
cease  to  be  wicked.  Though  their  personal  identity  re- 
mains unchanged,  yet,  as  guilt  attaches  only  to  character,  it 
must  be  expunged  as  soon  as  the  character  undergoes  a 
change.  God  deals  with  n:\en  according  to  the  present  con- 
dition of  their  moral  qualities,  and  he,  consequently,  Avho 
would  escape  from  punishment,  must  escape  from  that  moral 
pollution  which  the  law  condemns,  and  acquire  those  traits 
which  the  hiM"  ap})roves.  INIen  can  cease  to  be  guilty  only 
by  becoming  just;  their  righteousness  covers  their  iniquities 
— their  purity  cancels  their  guilt.  Abandoning  the  grounds 
of  displeasure  against  them,  they  procure  the  favour  of 
God. 


OF   THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  363 

Whatever  objections  to  this  reasoning  may  be  drawn  from 
the  ordinary  conduct  of  Providence,  and  however  fallacious 
it  may  be  in  itself,  yet  the  conclusion  at  which  it  aims  must 
be  confessed  to  be  plausible — it  falls  in  with  our  instinctive 
conviction  of  propriety;  and  as  the  government  of  God  is 
moral,  dispensing  rewards  and  punishments  according  to 
the  principles  of  distributive  justice,  there  is  felt  to  be  a 
manifest  incongruity  in  treating  the  righteous,  no  matter 
how  or  when  they  become  so,  as  if  they  were  wicked.  The 
fact  of  being  righteous  would  seem  to  be  sufficient  to  exempt 
from  j)unishment,  though  it  might  entitle  to  no  positive 
rewards.  Accustomed  to  regard  purity  as  the  parent  of  hap- 
piness, and  misery  as  the  offspring  of  vice,  we  spontaneously 
pronounce  it  to  be  absurd,  no  less  than  a  contradiction  in 
terms,  to  suppose  that  the  holy  can  ultimately  perish  or  the 
good  be  abandoned  of  God.  Still,  the  claims  of  violated 
law  are  sacred  and  immutable.  God  has  inseparably  linked 
together  punishment  and  crime,  and  it  is  the  dictate  alike 
of  reason  and  revelation — the  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die. 
Whatever  changes  may  have  been  experienced  in  the  moral 
qualities  of  the  agent,  his  personal  identity  is  untouched — 
he  is  the  man  who  sinned;  and  as  the  wrath  of  God  is  re- 
vealed from  heaven  against  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteous- 
ness of  men,  and  as  the  sin  cannot  be  visited  except  in  the 
person  of  the  transgressor  himself,  he  is  the  man  that  must 
suffer.  It  would  appear,  then,  that  if  a  sinner  could  repent 
of  his  iniquities,  and  undergo  a  complete  and  thorough 
transformation  in  his  moral  nature,  so  as  to  be  possessed  of 
all  the  qualities  which  God  requires,  the  change  in  his  cha- 
racter would  create  an  emergency  in  the  Divine  administra- 
tion, the  issue  of  which  it  would  be  impossible  for  us,  upon 
any  principles  of  natural  religion,  to  predict  with  certainty. 
Penal  justice,  constituting  an  indispensable  ingredient  of 
the  holiness  of  God,  would  be  evidently  forfeited  if  the 
past  offences  of  the  guilty  were  permitted  to  escape  M^ith 
impunity;  and  yet  the  idea  that  hell  should  be  peopled 
with  the  righteous — wuth  those  who  bear  the  image  of  their 


364  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

Maker,  and  are  intent,  even  amid  their  agonies,  upon  the 
glory  of  His  name — cannot  for  a  moment  be  endured. 

How,  then,  shall  this  problem  be  resolved?  ]\Iost  evi- 
dently by  denying  the  possibility  of  the  case.  Piety  in- 
stinctively suggests  what  reason  and  Scripture  concur  to 
authenticate — that  the  government  of  God  is  too  wisely 
ordered  in  all  its  arrangements  to  permit  emergencies  to 
arise,  as  they  often  occur  in  human  administrations,  which 
cannot  be  adjusted  without  inconsistency,  compromise  or 
concession.  It  can  never  consequently  happen,  in  the 
course  of  the  Divine  economy,  that  moral  fitness  sliall  be 
violated  by  dooming  the  upright  to  punishment ;  neither 
can  penal  justice  be  foregone  by  allowing  the  guilty  to 
escape.  These  two  principles,  equally  sacred  and  immu- 
table, must  be  preserved  in  inviolable  harmony — their 
demands  can  never  be  permitted  to  clash.  Hence,  the 
guilty  must  necessarily  be  incapable  of  rectitude.  They 
can  never  acquire  the  character  which  moral  fitness  shall 
approve  while  they  continue  in  the  state  which  penal  jus- 
tice must  condemn.  Pardon  is  accordingly  indispensable 
to  repentance;  the  liability  to  punishment,  or  what  Prot- 
estants denominate  guilt,  must  be  cancelled,  before  refor- 
mation is  possible  or  holiness  attainable.  Sanctificatiou, 
independently  of  a  previous  justification — previous  in  the 
order  of  nature,  though  not  necessarily  in  the  order  of  time 
— involves  a  gross  contradiction  in  terms.  Personal  holi- 
ness, according  to  the  uniform  teachings  of  the  Scriptures, 
results  from  union  with  God ;  and  union  with  God  neces- 
sarily implies  the  possession  of  His  favour.  Good  works, 
proceeding  as  they  do  from  the  love  of  God  as  their  source, 
governed  by  His  law  as  their  rule,  and  directed  to  His 
glory  as  their  end,  cannot  be  conceived  to  exist  among  out- 
casts and  aliens.  Men  without  God  are'  without  hope  in 
the  world.  As  the  light  of  the  sun  is  the  prolific  parent 
of  life,  beauty,  vegetation  and  growth  to  the  earth,  so  the 
light  of  the  Divine  countenance  diffuses  health,  cheerfulness 
and  vigour  in  the  hearts  of  the  children  of  men.     His 


OF   THE   CIIUECH    OF    ROME,  365 

favour  is  to  the  moral  what  the  sun  is  to  the  material  world, 
and  the  soul  that  is  darkened  by  His  frown  can  no  more 
"  move  in  charity  and  turn  upon  the  poles  of  truth  "  than 
a  soil  covered  with  perpetual  night  can  be  enriched  with 
verdure  or  adorned  with  animals  and  plants.  In  the  beau- 
tiful language  of  the  Psalmist,  His  favour  is  life,  and  His 
loving-kindness  is  better  than  life.  Union  with  Him  is 
the  only  source  of  strength,  purity  and  peace.  This  is 
what  the  Scripture  denominates  life. 

Now,  what  is  the  condition  of  an  unpardoned  sinner? 
His  first  transgression,  upon  the  necessary  principles  of 
retributive  justice,  has  doomed  him  to  the  curse.  But  to 
be  under  the  curse,  and  at  the  same  time  enjoy  the  favour 
of  God,  are  contradictory  states.  The  curse  implies  some- 
thing inconceivably  stronger  than  a  bare  negation  of  favour 
— it  fixes  an  illimitable  chasm  between  the  sinner  and  his 
Judge.  It  effects  that  awful  separation  from  God,  that 
banishment  from  His  presence,  that  aggregate  of  all  that 
is  terrible,  which  the  Bible  compendiously  expresses  by 
death :  in  this  condition  of  wretchedness  and  of  exile  the 
dominion  of  sin  must  be  unbroken  and  complete.  Corrup- 
tion riots  on  its  victim.  The  curse  which  banishes  from 
God  banishes  from  holiness.  The  unpardoned  sinner,  con- 
sequently, from  the  very  nature  of  his  state,  is  as  incapable 
of  aspiring  to  holiness  as  a  corpse  is  incapable  of  the  func- 
tions of  life.  It  is  his  doom,  like  the  serpent,  to  crawl  upon 
his  belly  and  to  lick  the  dust.  The  condemnation  which 
sends  him  out,  like  Cain,  from  the  presence  of  the  Almighty 
for  ever  precludes  the  possibility  of  repentance,  places  him 
beyond  the  pale  of  communion  with  his  Maker,  beyond  the 
reach  of  spiritual  impulses,  and  leaves  him  to  wither  in  the 
atmosphere  of  death.  Such  is  the  strength  of  the  law  to 
crush  the  victims  of  its  penalty.  All  that  are  under  the 
curse  are  dead — cut  off  from  the  fountain  of  life ;  the  only 
works  they  are  competent  to  perform  are  dead  works. 

The  effect  of  a  single  sin  upon  the  relations  of  a  creature 
to  God  is  by  most  men  inadequately  apprehended,  in  con- 


366  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

sequence  of  confounding  spiritual  death  with  the  extinction 
of  the  moral  nature.  As  long  as  habits  of  incurable  wicked- 
ness are  not  formed,  while  conscience  in  any  measure  con- 
tinues to  discharge  its  office,  and  the  understanding  re- 
cognizes the  distinctions  of  right  and  Avrong,  there  is  snp- 
posed  to  be  a  form  of  spiritual  life,  which,  by  vigilance 
and  culture,  may  be  restored  to  strength  and  nurtured  to 
maturity.  Death  in  trespasses  and  sins  is  represented  as 
the  result  of  a  course  of  transgression,  a  permanent  condi- 
tion of  depravity  produced  by  the  natural  operation  of 
habit.  This  is  to  confound  the  cause  with  its  effects,  the 
tree  with  its  fruits — death  as  a  state  with  its  ultimate  and 
complete  exhibitions.  According  to  the  Scriptures,  the 
slightest  sin,  like  a  puncture  of  the  heart,  is  instantly  at- 
tended with  this  awful  catastrophe.  It  dissolves  the  union 
betwixt  the  sinner  and  God ;  it  superinduces  the  condem- 
nation of  the  law,  and  whatever  operations  the  moral  nature 
may  subsequently  perform  are  destitute  of  the  only  principle 
which  can  render  them  acceptable.  As  natural  death  con- 
sists in  the  separation  of  the  body  and  soul,  so  spiritual 
death  consists  in  the  separation  of  the  soul  and  God.  As 
the  body,  though  destitute  of  life,  may  long  resist  the  pro- 
cess of  putrefaction,  preserving  the  integrity  of  its  members 
and  all  the  features  and  lineaments  of  the  man ;  so  the  soul, 
though  banished  from  God,  may  long  resist  what  may  not 
unaptly  be  styled  the  process  of  mom!  putrefaction,  contin- 
uing to  possess  sensibility  of  conscience,  delicacy  of  per- 
ception, and  revolting  at  the  thoughts  of  abandoned  wicked- 
ness. As  the  body  may  be  beautiful  in  death,  so  the  soul, 
deserted  of  God  and  bereft  of  the  light  of  holiness,  may  yet 
retain  something  of  original  brightness  in  its  form,  and 
reveal  in  the  grandeur  of  its  ruins  the  glory  of  the  state 
from  which  it  fell.  It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that 
spiritual  death  is  the  destruction  of  all  moral  susceptibilities 
and  impressions.  There  may  be  total  depravity  without 
desperate  atrocity,  a  complete  alienation  from  God  without 
degradation  to  the  fiendishness  of  devils,  an  utter  destitu- 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  367 

tlon  of  holiness  without  the  possession  of  all  conceivable 
wickedness.  The  condition  which  the  moralist  and  Phar- 
isee might  acknowledge  to  be  death  is  that  to  which  spiritual 
death  necessarily  tends.  As  soon  as  the  soul  is  cut  loose 
from  God  it  begins  a  career  which,  sooner  or  later,  eifects 
the  prostration  of  the  whole  moral  nature.  It  is  in  a  state  to 
form  the  habits  which  bind  it  in  fetters  of  massive  deprav- 
ity, as  the  body  ultimately  moulders  in  decay  from  which 
the  soul  has  taken  its  flight. 

Spiritual  death,  consisting,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  separa- 
tion of  the  soul  from  God,  must  continue  to  reign  until  a 
reunion  shall  have  been  effected.  There  can  be  no  holiness 
until  the  sinner  has  been  restored  to  the  favour  of  his 
Maker,  and  he  cannot  be  restored  to  this  state  until  the 
curse  of  the  law  has  been  removed.  He  must  therefore 
continue  to  be  incapable  of  holiness  as  long  as  the  law  con- 
tinues to  condemn.  Its  penalty  is  an  awful  barrier  betwixt 
his  soul  and  life,  and  until  that  barrier  is  in  some  way  or 
other  destroyed  he  must  remain  the  victim  of  everlasting 
death.  Hence,  the  removal  of  the  curse  is  the  first  step  in 
his  progress  to  holiness;  the  removal  of  the  curse  implies 
pardon ;  so  that  he  must  be  pardoned  before  he  can  repent, 
he  must  cease  to  be  condemned  before  he  can  breathe  the 
atmosphere  of  life.  Repentance  and  reformation,  proceed- 
ing from  communications  of  Divine  love,  involve  the  pos- 
session of  Divine  favour,  and  can  never  consequently  obtain 
among  those  whom  God  pronounces  to  be  vessels  of  His 
wrath.  To  suppose  that  a  sinner  can  be  sanctified  is  to 
suppose  that  he  can  enjoy  fellowship  with  God,  and  perform 
those  works  which  flow  from  the  participations  of  Divine 
love.  To  suppose  that  he  can  be  sanctified  without  being 
justified  is  to  suppose  that  he  can  be  in  a  condition  in 
which  God  denounces  him  as  the  object  of  vengeance,  and 
at  the  same  time  in  a  state  of  reconciliation  and  favour — • 
that  he  can  be  and  not  be  at  one  and  the  same  moment 
under  the  curse.  Repentance,  therefore,  implying  resto- 
ration to  favour  and  communion  with  God,  is  incompatible 


368  THE   VALIDITY   OF   THE   BAPTISM 

with  a  state  of  condemnation  which    debars    from    both ; 
and  consequently  an  unpardoned  sinner  cannot  repent. 

If,  now,  pardon  is  essential  to  repentance,  acceptance  in- 
dispensable to  holiness,  it  necessarily  follows  from  the  hypo- 
thesis of  Rome,  which  confounds  the  Water  and  the  Blood, 
that  repentance  and  holiness  are  hopelessly  impossible.  The 
design  of  justification  is  to  put  the  sinner  in  a  state  in  which 
the  light  of  the  Divine  countenance  can  be  lifted  up  upon 
him,  in  which  he  can  receive  communications  of  grace  and 
enjoy  communion  with  God.  If  these  manifestations  of 
favour  are  indispensable  to  holiness,  and  can  only  be  im- 
parted when  the  sinner  is  justified,  justification  must  be 
the  only  basis  on  which  righteousness  of  life  can  be  reared. 
Rome,  however,  has  reversed  this  order,  and  made  holiness 
essential  to  acceptance;  the  necessary  consequence  is,  that 
justification  is  denied  to  be  of  grace,  and  sanctification  is 
impossible.  With  all  her  pretended  zeal  for  the  interests 
of  righteousness,  her  extravagant  adulation  of  works,  and 
her  presumptuous  confidence  in  merit,  she  has  proclaimed  a 
creed  which  whoever  cordially  embraces  and  consistently 
endeavours  to  embody  in  his  life  must  everlastingly  remain 
an  alien  from*  God,  under  sentence  of  condemnation,  in 
bondage  to  spiritual  death.  Philosophy  and  Scripture  con- 
cur in  declaring  that  whoever  would  be  holy  must  be  in 
union  with  his  Maker,  that  union  with  God  is  inseparably 
connected  with  the  possession  of  His  favour,  and  the  posses- 
sion of  His  favour  a  fruit  of  justification;  so  that  M'hoever 
Avould  be  holy  must  necessarily  be  justified.  Rome,  on  the 
other  hand,  proclaims  in  foolish  confidence  of  boasting,  that 
the  sinner  must  begin  in  holiness  and  end  in  the  favour  of 
his  Judge,  begin  at  the  point  which  he  can  never  reach,  and 
of  course  end  precisely  where  he  was — under  the  wrath  and 
curse  of  the  Almighty.  Here,  then,  is  the  insuperable  dif- 
ficulty of  Rome — she  denies  the  Blood,  and,  in  denying  the 
blood,  inevitably  corrupts  the  Water;  she  takes  away  the 
cause,  and  of  course  must  renounce  the  effect.     Upon  her 


OF   THE   CHURCH   OF    ROME.  369 

hypothesis  sanctification  is  subverted.  How,  then,  can  hers 
be  a  saving  creed? 

The  impossibility  of  constructing  a  system  of  sanctifica- 
tion independently  of  a  gracious  justification  does  not 
strike  men  at  once,  because  they  are  apt  to  confound  two 
widely  different  conditions,  those  of  a  fallen  and  an  unfallen 
creature.  In  an  unfallen  state,  justification  is  possible  by 
the  deeds  of  the  law,  because  personal  obedience  is  within 
the  power  of  the  agent.  Created  in  the  image  of  God,  pos- 
sessed of  a  holy  nature  and  governed  by  holy  impulses, 
they  present  no  obstructions  in  their  persons  and  character 
to  the  free  communications  of  Divine  favour.  They  are 
united  with  God,  and  are,  consequently,  able  to  do  all  that 
His  law  demands.  But  so  long  as  they  are  not  justified 
this  union  is  precarious;  they  may  fall  from  their  integrity 
and  lose  their  rectitude  of  nature.  Justification  confirms 
this  union,  and  renders  their  apostasy  for  ever  impossible, 
giving  them  at  the  same  time  a  right  to  whatever  rewards 
had  been  promised  to  obedience,  so  that  perpetual  secur- 
ity is  one  of  its  leading  and  characteristic  benefits.  But 
the  justification  of  a  sinner,  of  a  fallen  being,  though  essen- 
tially the  same,  yet,  in  consequence  of  the  different  condition 
of  the  subject,  includes  the  imparting  of  an  element  which 
in  the  other  case  was  previously  possessed.  As  an  unfallen 
creature  already  enjoys  the  favour  of  God,  he  is  simply  con- 
firmed in  its  possession,  while  a  fallen  creature,  who,  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  is  alienated  from  his  Maker,  must 
first  acquire  this  privilege  before  he  can  be  confirmed  in  it ; 
his  union  with  God  must  be  instituted  as  well  as  established. 
As,  then,  in  the  justification  of  a  sinner,  communion  with 
God  is  to  be  procured  as  well  as  confirmed,  he  cannot  be 
justified  by  deeds  of  law,  which  presuppose  its  existence. 
His  acceptance  must  be  of  grace,  or  it  cannot  be  effected  at 
all.  It  must  precede  personal  obedience,  or  personal  obe- 
dience can  never  take  place. 

It  is  vain  to  allege,  in  extenuation  of  the  beggarly  the- 
ology of  Rome,  that,  in  consequence  of  the  work  of  the  Re- 

VoL.  III.— 24 


370  THE   VALIDITY   OF   THE   BAPTISM 

deemcr,  communications  of  grace  may  be  imparted  to  the 
guilty  which  enable  them  to  repent,  to  bring  forth  the  fruits 
of  righteousness,  and  so  to  be  justified  by  works.  These 
communications  either  imply  the  possession  of  the  Divine 
favour  and  deliverance  from  the  condemnation  of  the  law, 
or  they  do  not.  If  they  do,  the  sinner  is  already  justified 
M'ithout  works,  and  pardoned  independently  of  repentance, 
which  is  contrary  to  the  hypothesis.  If  they  do  not,  then 
they  leave  him  under  the  curse,  in  the  power  of  spiritual 
death,  and  of  course  do  not  impart  spiritual  life;  so  that 
the  W'Orks  which  they  enable  him  to  perform  are  only  dead 
works.  The  conclusion  is  therefore  unaifected,  that  without 
a  gracious  justification  no  sinner  can  be  sanctified.  Pardon 
and  acceptance  must  precede  repentance  and  holiness. 

The  practiced  effects  of  the  Eoraish  system  are  so  modified 
by  the  temper  and  constitution  of  those  by  whom  it  is  re- 
ceived as  to  present  no  uniform  appearance.  In  some  it 
produces  an  awful  bondage.  Anxiously  solicitous  about  the 
salvation  of  their  souls,  and  taught  to  seek  for  the  Divine 
favour  in  works  of  righteousness  wdiich  their  hands  have 
wrought,  they  exhaust  the  resources  of  their  nature  in  vain 
and  servile  efforts  to  compass  obedience  to  the  law.  Tor- 
tured by  conscience,  w^hich  always  in  the  guilty  foreeasteth 
grievous  things,  groaning  in  spirit  under  the  intolerable 
burden  of  aggravated  guilt,  they  multiply  devices  of  super- 
stition and  will-worship,  in  the  delusive  hope  of  bringing 
peace  to  their  troubled  and  agitated  breasts.  They  know 
nothing  of  the  liberty  of  the  sons  of  God.  Strangers  to 
that  glorious  spirit  of  adoption  which  the  sense  of  accept- 
ance generates,  they  feel  existence  to  be  a  curse,  and  dread 
the  presence  of  God  as  a  terrible  calamity.  Their  obe- 
dience is  the  effort  of  a  slave  to  propitiate  a  tyrant,  and  after 
a  life  dragged  out  in  galling  servitude,  death  comes  to 
them  clothed  with  tenfold  terror.  Eternity  is  shrouded 
in  insupportable  gloom,  and  the  dismal  tragedy  of  life  closes 
with  an  awful  catastrophe.  To  such  sensitive  and  con- 
scientious minds  Rome  presents  her  system  in  the  aspect  of 


OF   THE   CHURCH   OF   ROME.  371 

unbending  severity.  She  imposes  penances  and  privations, 
pilgrimages  and  fasts,  vows  of  poverty  and  self-denial, 
haircloth  and  rags,  the  torment  of  the  body  for  the  good 
of  the  soul.  Eternity  alone  can  disclose  the  groans,'  the 
sufferings,  the  agony  which  the  cells  of  her  monks  and  the 
chambers  of  her  nuns  have  witnessed  among  those  who  are 
anxiously  inquiring  wherewith  they  should  appear  before 
the  Lord  and  bow  themselves  before  the  Most  High  God. 
And  all  this  anguish  has  been  occasioned  by  her  devilish 
cruelty  in  suppressing  the  grace  of  God.  She  has  refused 
to  point  the  wounded  spirit  to  the  Fountain  opened  in  the 
house  of  David  for  sin  and  for  uncleanness ;  she  has  refused 
to  proclaim  a  free  and  glorious  justification  through  the 
obedience  unto  death  of  the  Son  of  God,  to  open  the  doors 
of  the  captive  and  strike  the  fetters  from  the  hands  of  the 
prisoner.  Instead  of  acting  as  the  herald  of  mercy,  she  has 
betrayed  the  cruelty  of  a  tyrant  brooding  in  vindictive 
malice  over  the  woes  and  anguish  which,  with  the  scorpion 
whip  of  the  law,  she  has  wrung  from  hearts  to  which  the 
oil  of  grace  should  have  been  imparted,  and  has  rejoiced 
in  thickening  the  horrors  of  superstition  where  she  was 
bound  to  diffuse  the  light  of  the  Gospel.  Like  the  ancient 
Pharisees,  she  binds  heavy  burdens  upon  men  and  grievous 
to  be  borne,  and  lays  them  on  their  shoulders,  and  will  not 
move  them  with  one  of  her  fingers.  She  shuts  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  against  them,  neither  entering  herself  nor 
permitting  others  to  do  so.  Like  ancient  Egypt  to  the  He- 
brews, she  is  literally  the  house  of  bondage.  Some,  like 
Luther,  have  escaped  from  her  cruelty.  The  key  which 
opened  their  prison  doors  and  enabled  the  soul  to  laugh  at 
her  terrors  was  justification  by  grace.  This  precious  truth, 
for  which  their  hearts  had  panted  in  Babylon,  was  the  talis- 
man of  joy,  of  peace,  of  holiness.  Delivered  from  the  curse 
of  the  law,  the  dominion  of  the  Devil  and  the  horrors  of  con- 
science, they  could  serve  God  acceptably  with  reverence  and 
godly  fear,  in  holiness  and  righteousness  before  Him,  all  the 
days  of  their  lives.     There  are  others  whose  apprehensions 


372  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

of  sin  are  less  feeble  and  impressive.  Disposed  to  make  a 
mock  of  its  consequences,  they  indulge  in  presumptuous 
hopes,  and  treat  the  salvation  of  the  soul  as  an  easy  and 
comparatively  light  matter.  These  Rome  flatters  Avith  the 
deceits  of  a  frivolous  and  deadly  casuistry.  Corrupting  the 
first  principles  of  morals,  she  makes  sin  to  be  no  more  sin, 
law  to  be  no  more  law ;  Avith  elaborate  ingenuity  she  has 
undertaken  to  solve  the  problem,  what  is  the  minimum  of 
decency  and  the  maximum  of  sin  with  which  men  can 
enter  into  heaven ;  she  has  confounded  the  distinctions  of 
truth  and  falsehood,  of  right  and  wrong,  and  left  nothing 
certain  but  her  own  pretended  authority ;  and  all  to  accom- 
modate easy  consciences,  to  reconcile  hopes  of  heaven  with 
a  careless  and  wicked  life. 

Such  is  the  working  of  the  system.  Theoretically,  it 
makes  sanctification  impossible;  practically,  it  verifies  the 
truth  of  the  theory. 

Extremes  meet.  An  old  writer  has  pithily  observed 
that  the  least  touch  of  a  pencil  will  translate  a  laughing 
into  a  crying  face.  In  illustration  of  the  j)roverb,  it  would 
not  be  difficult  to  prove  that  the  vaunting  legalism  of  Rome 
really  terminates  in  a  filthy  and  disgusting  antinoraianism. 
She  degrades  the  majesty  of  the  Divine  law,  substitutes  for 
it  a  fictitious  standard  of  excellence,  and  represses  those 
emotions  which  niust  characterize  the  heart  of  every  true 
penitent.  Her  doctrine  of  venial  sins,  which  are  confessed 
to  be  transgressions  of  the  Divine  commandments,  is  utterly 
incompatible  with  those  awful  impressions  of  the  malignity 
of  the  least  departure  from  rectitude  which  the  holiness  of 
God  and  the  atonement  of  the  Redeemer  alike  impart. 
She  teaches  that  men  may  disregard  the  authority  of  their 
Maker  and  yet  not  be  deserving  of  death — that  there  are 
some  precepts  so  insignificant,  and  some  offences  so  trivial 
and  harmless,  that  a  few  signs  of  the  cross  and  muttered 
incantations,  a  little  holy  water,  an  Ave  Maria  or  a  Pater 
Noster,  are  abundantly  sufficient  to  expiate  them.  Is  not 
blasphemy  written  on  the  portals  of  a  church  which  can 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  373 

preach  such  a  doctrine  as  this?     Does  she  not  make  the 
commandments  of  God  of  none  effect  by  her  traditions  ? 

But  the  odious  tendencies  of  her  doctrine  are  not  only 
manifested  in  her  slight  estimate  of  some  of  the  command- 
ments— one  she  has  absolutely  expunged.  The  pure  and 
sublime  idea  which  the  Scriptures  inculcate  of  a  spiritual 
God,  neither  possessed  of  a  corporeal  figure  nor  capable  of 
being  represented  by  visible  symbols,  is  as  much  a  stranger 
to  the  theology  of  Rome  as  to  the  "  elegant  mythology  of 
Greece."  Hence,  we  are  told  that  "  to  represent  the  persons 
of  the  Holy  Trinity  by  certain  forms  under  which,  as  we 
read  in  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments,  they  deigned  to 
appear,  is  not  to  be  deemed  contrary  to  religion  or  the  law 
of  God."  Accordingly,  the  second  commandment  is  annulled 
by  the  hierarchy  (in  books  of  popidar  devotion  it  is  wholly 
suppressed),  the  windows  of  Papal  churches  are  frequently 
adorned  with  images  of  the  Trinity,  the  breviaries  and  mass- 
books  are  embellished  with  engravings  which  represent  God 
the  Father  as  a  venerable  old  man,  the  Eternal  Son  in 
human  form,  and  the  blessed  Spirit  in  the  shape  of  a  dove. 
Sometimes  grotesque  images,  hardly  surpassed  in  the  fabu- 
lous creations  of  heathen  poets,  where  centaurs,  gorgons, 
mermaids,  with  all  manner  of  impossible  things,  hold  un- 
disputed sway,  are  employed  to  give  an  adequate  impression 
of  Him  who  dwells  in  majesty  unapproachable,  whom  no 
man  hath  seen  or  can  see.  To  picture  the  Holy  Trinity  with 
three  noses  and  four  eyes  and  three  faces — and  in  this  form 
these  Divine  persons  are  sometimes  submitted  to  the  devout 
contemplation  of  Papal  idolaters — is  to  give  an  idea  of  God 
from  which  an  ancient  Roman  or  a  modern  Hindoo  might 
turn  away  in  disgust.  Such  gross  and  extravagant  symbols, 
however  carefully  explained  or  allegorically  interpreted, 
involve  a  degradation  of  the  Supreme  Being  which  it  is  im- 
possible to  reconcile  with  the  sublime  announcement  of  our 
Saviour  that  God  is  a  Spirit,  and  they  that  worship  Him 
must  worship  Him  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  The  adoration 
which  is  paid  to  the  Deity  under  any  corporeal  figure  or 


374  THE    VALIDITY   OF    THE    BAPTISM 

visible  representation  cannot  be  vindicated  from  the  charge 
of  idolatry  upon  any  principles  which  do  not  exempt  from 
the  same  imputation  every  form,  whether  ancient  or  modern, 
of  Pagan  superstition.  It  is  quite  certain,  from  the  accounts 
of  heathen  philosophers  and  poets,  that  the  images  of  their 
gods  Avere  regarded  simply  as  visible  memorials  of  invisible 
deities,  as  signs  by  which  their  affections  were  excited  and 
through  which  their  worship  was  directed.  The  veneration 
with  which  they  were  treated  was  purely  of  that  relative 
kind  which  the  Romish  doctors  impute  to  the  devotees  of 
their  own  communion.^     Pagan  statues  and  Romish  pictures 

^  "  Nor  is  it  of  any  importance  whether  they  worship  simply  tlie  idol 
or  God  in  the  idol ;  it  is  always  idolatry  when  Divine  honours  are  paid  to 
an  idol  under  any  pretence  whatsoever.  And  as  God  will  not  be  wor- 
shipped in  a  superstitious  or  idolatrous  manner,  whatever  is  conferred  on 
idols  is  taken  from  Him.  Let  this  be  considered  by  tliose  who  seek  such 
miserable  pretexts  for  the  defence  of  that  execrable  idolatry  with  which 
for  many  ages  true  religion  has  been  overwhelmed  and  subverted.  The 
images,  they  say,  are  not  considered  as  gods.  Neither  were  the  Jews  so 
thoughtless  as  not  to  remember  that  it  was  God  by  whose  hand  they  had 
been  conducted  out  of  Egypt  before  they  made  the  calf.  But  when  Aaron 
said  that  those  were  the  gods  by  whom  they  had  been  liberated  from 
Egypt,  they  boldly  assented :  signifying,  doubtless,  that  they  would  keep  in 
remembrance  that  God  Himself  was  their  Deliverer,  while  they  could  see 
Him  going  before  them  in  the  calf.  Nor  can  we  believe  the  heathen  to 
have  been  so  stupid  as  to  conceive  that  God  was  no  other  than  wood  and 
stone.  For  they  changed  the  images  at  pleasure,  but  always  retained  in 
their  minds  the  same  gods,  and  there  were  many  images  for  one  god;  nor 
did  they  imagine  to  themselves  gods  in  proijortion  to  the  multitude  of 
images ;  besides,  they  daily  consecrated  new  images,  but  without  supposing 
that  they  made  new  gods.  Eead  the  excuses  which  Augustine  (in  Psalm 
cxiii.)  says  were  alleged  by  the  idolaters  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived. 
When  they  were  charged  with  idolatry,  the  vulgar  replied  that  they  wor- 
shipped not  the  visible  figure,  but  the  Divinity  that  invisibly  dwelt  in  it. 
But  they  whose  religion  was,  as  he  expresses  himself,  more  refined,  said 
that  they  worshipped  neither  the  image  nor  the  Spirit  represented  by  it, 
but  that  in  the  corporeal  figure  they  beheld  a  sign  of  that  which  they 
ought  to  worship."  Calvin's  Inst.,  Lib.  i.,  cap.  xi.,  |  10.  Upon  this  whole 
subject  of  the  idolatry  of  tlie  Church  of  Eome  tlie  reader  is  referred  to 
Archbishop  Tenison's  Discourse  of  Idolatry,  particularly  to  chapters  x., 
xi.,  xii.  That  the  heathens  did  not  regard  their  images  as  gods,  and  that 
they  worshipped  them  on  the  same  principle  vindicated  by  the  Papists, 
mav  l)e  seen  from  Arnobius,  Lactantiiis,  Austin  and  divers  of  the  Fathers. 


OF   THE   CHURCH   OF   ROME.  375 

are  due  to  the  operation  of  the  same  principle — an  attempt 
to  accommodate  the  receding  majesty  of  a  s^jiritnal  being  to 
human  sympathies,  and  to  divest  the  adoration  of  an  infinite 
object  of  some  of  its  awful  and  mysterious  veneration  by 
reducing  its  grandeur  to  the  feeble  apprehension  of  human 
capacities.  Fallen  humanity,  having  originally  apostatized 
from  God,  and  lost  the  right  as  well  as  the  power  of  intimate 
communion  with  the  Father  of  spirits,  seeks  to  gratify  its 
religious  aspirations  by  tangible  objects  around  which  its 
sympathies  can  readily  cling.  Unable  to  soar  to  the  unap- 
proachable light  in  which  Deity  dwells  in  mysterious  sanc- 
tity, it  spends  its  devotion  upon  humbler  things,  to  which  it 
imparts  such  Divine  associations  as  may  seem  at  least  to 
reconcile  the  worship  with  the  acknowledged  supremacy  of 
God.  When  we  cannot  rise  to  God,  the  religious  necessities 
of  our  nature  will  drag  Him  down  to  us.  In  the  Papal 
community  the  degradation  of  the  Supreme  Being  seems  to 
have  reached  its  lowest  point  of  disgusting  fetichism  in  the 
adoration  of  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  sacramental  feast.  I 
know  of  nothing  in  the  annals  of  heathenism  that  can  justly 
be  compared  with  this  stupendous  climax  of  absurdity,  im- 
piety, blasphemy  and  idolatry.  The  work  of  the  cook  and 
the  product  of  the  vintage,  bread  and  wine,  the  materials 
of  food  which  pass  through  the  stages  of  digestion  and 
decay,  are  placed  before  us,  after  having  been  submitted  to 
the  magical  process  of  sacerdotal  enchantment,  as  the  eternal 
God  in  the  person  of  the  incarnate  Redeemer.^     The  eucha- 

A  very  interesting  discussion  of  the  nature  and  unlawfulness  of  image- 
worship  may  be  found  in  Taylor's  Ductor  Dubitantium,  book  ii.,  chap,  ii., 
rule  6,  ?  21,  ad  fin. ;  Works,  vol.  xii.,  p.  382,  seq.  The  vain  pretexts  of 
the  Papists  are  there  so  ably  discussed  that  the  reader  is  earnestly  requested 
to  peruse  it. 

^  We  submit  to  the  reader  the  following  description  of  the  scene  when 
the  bread  and  wine  are  about  to  be  destroyed  and  the  person  of  the 
Saviour  produced.  It  is  taken  from  Bishop  England's  preface  to  his 
translation  of  the  Roman  missal,  p.  78 : 

"We  are  now  arrived  at  that  part  which  is  the  most  solemn,  important 
and  interesting  of  the  entire;  everything  hitherto  had  reference  remotely 
or  proximately  to  the  awful  moment  which  approaches.     For  now  the 


376  THE   VALIDITY   OF   THE   BAPTISM 

rlstic  elements  are  not  memorials  of  Christ  nor  visible  sym- 
bols of  his  love :  they  are,  after  the  pretended  consecration 
of  the  priest,  the  Son  of  God  himself.  They  are  Avorshipped 
and  adored,  eaten  and  drunk,  received  into  the  stomach  and 
jDassed  into  the  bowels,  as  the  Creator,  Preserver  and  Saviour 
of  mankind ! 

The  ancient  Egyptians,  in  paying  religious  veneration  to 
inferior  animals  and  to  a  certain  class  of  vegetables,  regarded 
them  as  sacred,  as  we  learn  from  Herodotus  and  Cicero,  on 
account  of  their  subservience  to  purposes  of  utility.  They 
Avere  considered  not  as  gods  themselves,  but  as  instruments 
of  Divine  Providence  by  which  the  interests  of  husbandry 
were  promoted  and  noxious  vermin  were  destroyed.  But 
where  in  the  whole  history  of  mankind,  among  the  darkest 
tribes  of  Africa  or  the  benighted  inhabitants  of  the  isles  of 
the  sea,  is  another  instance  to  be  found  of  a  superstition  so 
degraded  or  a  form  of  idolatry  so  horribly  revoltmg  as  that 
which  is  presented  in  the  doctrine  of  the  INIass  ?  The  in- 
fernal incantation  of  the  witches  in  INIacbeth,  chanting  their 
awful  dirges  over  the  boiling  caldron  in  which  are  mingled 
the  elements  of  death,  are  to  my  mind  less  insupportably 
disgusting,  less  terrifically  wicked,  than  those  of  the  priests 
of  Rome  pretending  to  subject  the  Saviour  of  the  world, 

true  victim  is  about  to  be  produced.  In  a  well-regulated  cathedral  this 
indeed  is  a  moment  of  splendid, improving  and  edifying  exhibition  to  the 
well-instructed  Christian.  The  joyful  hosannas  of  the  organ  have  died 
away  in  deep  and  solemn  notes  which  seem  to  be  gradually  lost  as  they 
ascend  to  the  throne  of  God,  and  solemn  silence  pervades  the  church  ;  the 
celebrant  stands  bareheaded,  about  to  perform  the  most  awful  duty  in  which 
a  man  could  possibly  be  engaged.  His  assistants  in  profound  expectation 
await  the  performance  of  that  duty ;  taper-bearers  line  the  sides  of  the 
sanctuary,  and  with  their  lighted  lamps  await  the  arrival  of  their  Lord ; 
incense-bearers  kneel,  ready  to  envelope  the  altar  in  a  cloud  of  perfumes 
which  represents  the  prayers  of  the  Saints,  and  at  the  moment  of  the  con- 
secration, when  the  celebrant  elevates  the  host  and  the  tinkling  of  a  small 
bell  gives  notice  of  the  arrival  of  the  Lamb,  every  knee  is  bent,  every 
head  is  bowed,  gratulating  music  bursts  upon  the  ear,  and  the  lights  wliich 
surround  the  throne  of  Him  who  conies  to  save  a  world  are  seen  dimly 
blazing  through  the  clouds  of  perfumed  smoke  which  envelope  this  mystic 
place." 


OF   THE   CHURCH   OF   ROME.  377 

in  cold-blood  cruelty  and  for  purposes  of  hire,  and  that  in 
increasing  millions  of  instances,  to  the  unutterable  agonies 
of  Gethsemane  and  Calvary. 

While  she  thus  depresses  the  Divine  standard  of  holiness, 
mutilates  the  first  table  of  the  law,  and  makes  idolatry  a 
part  of  devotion,  she  fabricates  a  standard  of  her  own.  She 
assumes  to  be  a  lawgiver,  and  proclaims  her  impious  pre- 
cepts upon  the  pains  of  the  second  death.  Men  may  violate 
the  law  of  God  with  impunity,  but  the  authority  of  Rome 
must  be  guarded  with  the  awful  sanctions  of  eternity.  She 
has  instituted  days,  and  months,  and  years ;  she  has  ap- 
pointed confessions,  penances  and  ceremonies ;  she  has  con- 
structed a  vast  system  of  will-worship,  and  has  conceded 
the  palm  of  distinguished  holiness  to  the  sanctimonious 
h}^30crites  who  most  scrupulously  comply  with  her  minute 
and  painful  observances,  although  they  may  be  living  in 
flagrant  contempt  of  some  of  the  most  palpable  injunctions 
of  God. 

And  what  shall  be  said  of  the  fiction  of  supererogatory 
merits,  of  the  competency  of  one  man  to  satisfy  for  the  sins 
of  another,  and  of  the  power  of  the  Church  to  disj)ense 
indulgences  for  gold  ?  What  shall  be  said  of  purgatory, 
private  masses,  auricular  confession  and  priestly  absolution  ? 
What  are  all  these  but  so  many  proofs  of  the  desperate 
blindness  of  Rome  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  holiness,  the 
beauty  and  simplicity  of  spiritual  truth,  and  the  compass, 
purity  and  extent  of  the  Divine  law — so  many  monuments 
of  presumptuous  confidence  in  the  resources  and  ability  of 
man,  and  contempt  for  the  provisions  and  efficacy  of  God's 
grace  ? 

Her  whole  system  in  regard  to  the  Water  is  fundamentally 
corrupt.  She  renders  the  sanctification  of  the  Gospel  hope- 
lessly impossible,  substituting  for  a  spiritual  devotion  the 
grievous  bondage  of  superstition,  and  for  holiness  of  life  the 
sanctimonious  hypocrisy  of  will-worship. 

(3.)  Having  shown  that  Rome  is  essentially  unsound  in 
regard  to  the  Water  and  the  Blood,  I  proceed  to  consider  her 


378  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

doctrine  of  the  Spirit,  or  the  account  which  she  gives  of  the 
application  of  redemption  to  the  hearts  and  consciences  of 
men.  Upon  this  j^oint,  aUhough  the  Reviewer  has  asserted 
that  she  holds  "  a  much  higher  doctrine  as  to  the  necessity 
of  Divine  influence  than  prevails  among  many  whom  we 
recognize  as  Christians/'  yet,  according  to  the  standard  of 
the  lleformation,  the  theology  of  the  Vatican  is  in  fatal  and 
fundamental  error.  If  we  take  the  creed  of  Rome,  not 
from  the  speculations  of  private  doctors  nor  the  peculiar 
opinions  of  chosen  schools — Dominicans,  Thomists  and 
Jansenists — but  from  the  public  and  authorized  symbols  of 
the  Church,  it  seems  to  me  impossible  to  deny  that  her 
theory  of  grace  is  exactly  in  accordance  with  the  conditions 
of  a  legal  system,  and  presents  as  wide  a  departure  from  the 
simplicity  of  the  Gospel  in  regard  to  the  operations  of  the 
Spirit  as  her  views  of  justification  in  regard  to  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ.  Representing  the  economy  of  salvation  as 
a  new  dispensation  of  law,  she  makes  its  blessings  con- 
tingent and  precarious,  dependent  upon  the  decision  of  its 
subjects  and  not  upon  the  agency  of  God.  As  freedom  and 
mutability  of  will  are  evidently  essential  to  a  state  of 
proper  probation — freedom,  as  implying  the  power  to  fulfil 
whatever  conditions  are  exacted;  mutability,  as  denoting 
that  the  power  may  be  abused  and  the  required  obedience 
withheld — Rome  can  consistently  admit  no  other  operations 
of  the  Spirit  than  those  which  shall  impart  ability  to  stand 
without  affecting  the  liability  to  fall. 

Able  to  stand  and  liable  to  fall, — this  is  a  compendious 
description  of  man  in  his  condition  of  innocence,  and  must 
appertain  to  him  under  every  economy  which  suspends 
acceptance  upon  personal  performances.  Hence,  Rome 
places  the  destiny  of  the  sinner  in  his  own  hands.  Suce 
quisque  fortunce  faber  est.  Whatever  may  be  her  pretensions 
on  the  subject — and  they  are  vain  enough — the  supernatural 
gifts  which  she  attributes  to  the  Spirit,  since  they  are  in- 
tended to  qualify  men  for  a  legal  dispensation,  are  no  more 
entitled  to  be  denominated  grace  than  the  natural  endowments 


OF   THE    CHURCH    OF    EOME.  379 

of  the  Pelagian.  They  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  salva- 
tion, spring  from  the  same  source  and  are  dispensed  for 
the  same  end.  If,  as  Rome  contends,  we  are  the  subjects  of 
an  original  probation,  whatever  is  necessary  to  fit  us  for  the 
trial  must  be  imparted  on  principles  of  justice ;  and  it  is  a 
mere  question  of  priority  of  time  whether  the  necessary 
qualifications  which  must  be  possessed  shall  be  traced  to 
creation  or  to  some  act  subsequent  to  birth :  it  is  equally  a 
question  of  words  and  names  whether  they  shall  be  called 
nature  or  grace.  To  be  born  with  them  is  as  truly  to  receive 
them  fi'om  God  as  to  acquire  them  by  an  extraordinary  com- 
munication ;  and  in  either  case  they  are  intended  to  adapt  us 
to  the  exigencies  of  a  legal  condition.  Gifts  springing  from 
the  same  source,  directed  to  the  same  end,  accomplishing  the 
same  results,  are  unquestionably  of  the  same  nature,  whatever 
may  be  the  order  of  time  in  which  they  are  bestowed.  The 
only  point  in  which  the  hypothesis  of  Rome  has  the  advan- 
tage of  the  most  unblushing  Pelagianism  is  in  relation,  not  to 
the  doctrine  of  grace,  but  to  the  natural  condition  of  man. 
In  the  Papal  creed,  the  Fall,  as  a  federal  transgression,  is 
admitted,  and  guilt  and  depravity  confessed  to  be  the  in- 
heritance of  Adam's  descendants.  In  the  Pelagian  creed,  it 
is  denied  to  be  any  thing  more  than  a  private  sin,  and  its 
penal  consequences  are  accordingly  restricted  to  the  author 
of  the  act.  But  both  parties  represent  the  present  as  a  legal 
state — the  Pelagian,  as  a  continuance  of  our  first  trial,  and, 
therefore,  he  supposes  that  we  are  born  with  all  that  is 
requisite  to  meet  it ;  the  Papist,  as  a  new  trial  superinduced 
upon  the  ruins  of  the  first,  and  therefore,  as  he  must  admit 
that  we  first  reap  the  consequences  of  the  original  failure, 
he  confesses  that  we  are  horn  in  sin,  yet  because  of  the  new 
dispensation  he  makes  provisions  to  fit  us  for  the  race  which 
is  now  set  before  us.  The  creed  of  one  has  more  truth,  but 
not  more  grace,  than  the  other,  for  both  are  equally  a  cove- 
nant of  works,  and  equally  destructive  of  the  principles  of 
the  Gospel. 

In  conformity  with  this  reasoning,  no  operations  of  the 


380  THE   VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

Spirit  can  be  justly  denominated  grace  which  leave  the 
decision  of  his  destiny  in  the  hands  of  the  sinner.  The 
agency  of  God  may  be  carried  so  far  as  to  make  men  able 
to  stand,  yet,  if  it  depends  upon  themselves  to  stand  or  fall, 
to  use  or  reject  the  assistance  Avhich  is  given,  there  is  noth- 
ing in  such  a  state  to  distinguish  it  from  the  grossest  legal- 
ism. The  Spirit  is  evidently  the  servant  not  the  master  of 
the  man ;  grace  obeys  but  (Joes  not  reign.  All  such  schemes, 
-whatever  honour  they  may  pretend  to  ascribe  to  the  Holy 
Ghost,  are  insulting  to  God,  since  they  lay  a  foundation  for 
boasting  in  the  creature.  That  alone  is  grace,  in  the  strict 
and  proper  application  of  the  term,  which,  independently 
of  works  on  our  part,  determines  the  will,  and  not  only 
makes  it  able  to  stand,  but  guards  it  against  the  possibility 
of  failure.  As  in  justification  it  is  the  righteousness  of 
God  that  reigns  to  the  exclusion  of  human  obedience,  so  in 
regeneration  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  reigns  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  that  of  man.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. "  Of  His  own  will  begat  He  us ;"  "  it  is  not 
of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God 
that  showeth  mercy."  This  is  the  only  view  of  the  sub- 
ject which  is  consistent  with  the  doctrine  of  gratuitous 
justification,  and  hence  those  who  have  attributed  a  sove- 
reignty to  the  human  will  which  God  cannot  control  Avith- 
out  destroying  its  nature  have  invariably  denied  the  impu- 
tation of  the  Saviour's  righteousness.  From  the  very 
necessity  of  the  case  they  must  be  legalists ;  the  reason  why 
one  is  justified  and  another  not,  they  must  seek  in  the 
sinner  himself,  and,  hence,  justification  cannot  be  wholly 
irrespective  of  works.  What  is  commonly  called  free-will 
is  as  directly  contradictory  to  the  grace  of  the  Spirit  in 
effectual  calling  as  works  of  righteousness  to  the  grace  of 
the  Redeemer  in  justification.  Grace  must  reign,  or  it 
ceases  to  be  grace,  and  the  office  of  the  human  will  is  not 
so  much  to  concur  with  it  as  to  obey  it ;  its  efficacy  consists 
in  removing  the  spirit  of  resistance  and  implanthig  the 
spirit  of  obedience.     "  The  grace  of  God,"  says  Quesnel,  in 


OF   THE   CHURCH   OF   EOME.  381 

his  Moral  Eeflections  on  the  New  Testament,  "  is  nothing 
else  but  His  omnijjotent  will."  "  God/'  says  a  higher 
authority,  "worketh  in  us  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  His 
good  pleasure."  All  the  analogies  by  which  it  is  illus- 
trated in  Scripture  show  that  in  regeneration  man  is  the 
subject  of  an  almighty  operation,  extending  to  all  the  facul- 
ties of  the  soul,  the  will  itself  included.  It  is  not  a  change 
in  man — it  is  a  change  of  man.  In  his  natural  condition  he 
is  as  completely  nothing  in  regard  to  the  proper  ends  of  his 
existence  as  if  he  possessed  no  being  at  all,  and  the  power 
which  recalls  him  from  this  state  is  as  independent  of  his 
concurrence  as  that  which  originally  created  him  from 
nothing.  The  human  will,  therefore,  must  be  excluded 
from  any  participation  in  the  work  of  regeneration,  or  grace 
ceases  to  be  grace,  man  reigns, ,  God  is  dethroned,  and  a 
legal  system  is  established.  Grace  is  the  antithesis  of  the 
sovereignty  of  man.  Hence,  the  Reformers,  who  reviewed 
the  doctrines  of  grace,  were  deeply  imj^ressed  with  the  indis- 
pensable necessity  of  laying  deeply  the  foundation  of  the 
Spirit's  work  in  the  bondage  of  the  human  will.  They 
perceived  at  a  glance  that  gratuitous  justification  could  not 
be  maintained  a  moment  if  it  depended  upon  man  himself 
whether  he  should  be  justified  or  not.  Luther,  accordingly, 
while  he  denominated  justification  by  grace  the  "a7-ticulus 
stantis  aid  cadentis  ecdesice,"  attached  no  less  importance  to 
the  resistless  power  of  the  Spirit  in  the  new  birth  as  that  by 
which  alone  the  grace  of  the  former  could  be  preserved. 
What  appeared  to  his  age  his  most  extravagant  paradoxes 
were  put  forth  on  the  natural  impotence  of  man.  His 
sense  of  the  necessity  of  maintaining  the  servitude  of  the 
will  as  the  only  adequate  foundation  of  grace  may  be  judged 
from  the  fact  that  he  paid  to  Erasmus,  who  had  written  an 
elaborate  defence  of  its  freedom,  the  distinguished  compli- 
ment of  being  the  only  champion  of  the  Papacy  who  under- 
stood the  controversy  betwixt  the  Reformers  and  Rome. 
"I  must  acknowledge,"  says  Luther,  "that  in  this  great 
controversy  you  alone  have  taken  the  bull  by  the  horns." 


382  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

It  is  evident  that  if  the  doctrine  of  justification  were  the 
hinge  upon  which  the  Reformation  turned,  the  servitude  of 
the  will  was  the  hinge  upon  which  the  controversy  about 
justification  turned.  The  supremacy  of  the  Divine  will 
and  of  Christ's  righteousness  stand  or  fall  together.  Effect- 
ual grace  and  free  justification  are  inseparable  elements  of 
the  same  system.  These  precious  truths  carry  in  their 
bosom  the  kindred  doctrines  of  personal  election,  final  per- 
severance and  particular  redemption,  which  are  so  indisso- 
lubly  united  together  that  to  deny  one  is  logically,  though 
not  always  in  fact,  to  deny  them  all,  and  to  admit  one  is 
logically,  though  not  always  in  fact,  to  admit  them  all. 
These  are  the  truths  which  combined  into  a  system  con- 
stitute pre-eminently  the  doctrines  of  grace,  Avliich,  after 
having  been  buried  and  obscured  for  ages,  w'ith  the  excep- 
tion of  a  cloister  here  and  there,  or  a  few  hearts  doomed  to 
solitude  and  suffering,  in  which  their  light  still  dimly 
burned,  burst  upon  the  world  in  their  original  lustre  at  the 
time  of  the  Reformation.  These  are  the  truths  which  bring 
glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  and  distribute  peace  among 
men.  They  are  the  hope  of  our  race,  the  stars  which  adorn 
the  firmament  of  revelation.  In  their  light  we  behold  the 
sovereignty  of  God  and  the  nothingness  of  man ;  here  the 
Creator  is  supreme,  while  the  creature  is  prostrate  in  the 
dust.  They  force  from  us  the  doxology  of  earth,  "Not 
unto  us,  not  unto  us,"  and  the  pealing  anthem  of  heaven, 
"  The  Lord  God  Omnipotent  reigncth." 

That  Rome  denies  tlie  efficacy  of  grace,  which  is  equiva- 
lent to  denying  its  reality,  as  contradistinguished  from  the 
qualification  of  a  legal  state,  may  be  inferred  not  only  from 
the  logical  necessity  of  her  system,  but  from  the  canons  of 
Trent  and  the  subsequent  bulls  of  her  popes.  The  Tri- 
dentine  Fathers  affirm,  in  the  first  place,  that  liberty  of 
will  is  not  extinguished  by  the  Fall ;  it  is  only  enfeebled  and 
bent.  This  cautious  phraseology  implies  that  notwithstand- 
ing the  ruins  and  desolation  of  sin  there  yet  lingers  in  man 
some  germ  of  spiritual  life,  some  latent  susceptibility  of 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  383 

holy  emotions,  which  proper  nourishment  and  care  may 
develope  into  healthful  exercise.  Man  is  not  dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sins,  he  is  only  crippled  and  exhausted;  he 
does  not  require  to  be  created  anew,  it  is  amply  sufficient  to 
nurse  his  attenuated  power,  to  stop  the  progress  of  dis- 
ease, and  leave  to  nature  the  action  of  its  vis  mecUcatrix. 
"  Free-will,"  says  Andradius,^  in  explaining  this  very  state- 
ment of  the  Council,  "  without  the  inspiration  and  assist- 
ance of  the  Spirit,  cannot  perform  spiritual  actions.  This, 
however,  does  not  result  from  the  fact  that  the  mind  and 
will  which  man  possesses  from  his  birth  are  previously  to 
conversion  utterly  destitute  of  any  of  the  power,  abilities 
or  faculties  which  are  necessary  for  beginning  or  consum- 
mating spiritual  actions.  It  is  rather  because  these  natural 
abilities  and  faculties,  though  neither  eifaced  nor  extin- 
guished, are  so  involved  in  the  snares  of  sin  that  man  can- 
not by  his  own  strength  extricate  himself  from  the  net ; 
as  he  who  is  fettered  with  iron  shoes  may  have  the  natural 
ability  to  walk,  yet  although  he  possesses  he  cannot  lise  it 
and  actually  walk  until  the  fetters  are  broken  which  hin- 
der and  retard  his  motion."  Here  is  the  famous  distinc- 
tion, which  should  always  have  been  confined  to  the  forges 
of  Home,  between  natural  and  moral  ability.  The  sinner 
possesses  the  power  to  act,  but  his  energies  are  restrained  by 
superior  strength.  Conversion  simply  throws  oif  the  super- 
incumbent pressure,  and  permits  the  wearied  and  exhausted 
faculties  of  man  to  develope  and  expand.  Grace  imparts  no 
new  susceptibilities,  communicates  no  supernatural  faculties;  it 
only  takes  from  the  garden  of  nature  the  weeds  which  infest  it. 
An  illustration  similar  in  import  to  that  of  Andradius  is 
employed  by  Bellarmine.^  In  answer  to  the  question  how 
the  will  can  possess  the  power  of  contrary  choice  when  it  is 
unable  to  do  good,  he  observes:  "That  the  will  is  indeed 
free,  ibut  its  liberty  is  bound  and  restrained ;    it  becomes 

^  As  quoted  in  Chemnitzii  Exam.  Cone.  Trident.,  de  Libero  Arljitrio, 
p.  134. 

^  De  Gratia  et  Lib.  Arbit.,  Lib.  vi.,  c.  xv. 


384  THE   VALIDITY   OF   THE   BAPTISM 

released  and  disentangled  when  the  proximate  power  of 
working  is  imparted  to  it  by  the  preventing  grace  of  God. 
Something  similar  wc  experience  in  regard  to  the  power  of 
vision  where  the  sensible  species  is  absent ;  man  still  pos- 
sesses the  power  and  liberty  of  seeing,  for  that  species  is  not 
the  cause  of  either.  The  power,  however,  is  remote,  and 
the  liberty  bound,  until  the  species  being  present  the  power 
is  perfected  and  may  be  actually  exercised." 

The  doctrine  of  Trent,  then,  plainly  is,  that  man  is  pos- 
sessed of  natural  though  not  of  moral  ability  to  comply 
with  the  commandments  of  God;  and  if  this  doctrine  has 
recently  been  regarded  as  fatal  in  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
it  is  hard  to  understand  how  it  can  be  saving  in  the  Church 
of  Rome.  Anywhere  and  everyAvhere  it  breathes  the  spirit 
of  a  legal  covenant. 

In  the  next  place,  the  phrases  by  which  Trent  distin- 
guishes the  operations  of  the  Spirit  are  studiously  accom- 
modated to  this  absurd  theory  of  the  freedom  of  the  will. 
Grace  "excites"  and  "helps," — expressions  which  obviously 
imply  that  there  are  dormant  energies  to  be  stimulated  and 
fainting  strength  to  be  assisted. 

But  the  most  detestable  feature  in  her  theory  is,  that  the 
influences  of  the  Spirit  derive  their  efficacy  not  from  the 
will  and  power  of  God,  but  from  the  consent  and  concur- 
rence of  man.  Such  is  the  sovereignty  of  the  human  will 
that  all  the  efforts  of  the  Almighty  to  regenerate  the  heart 
may  be  rendered  abortive  by  an  obstinate  resistance.  The 
will  is  above  the  reach  of  Deity  Himself.  God  may  per- 
suade, but  He  cannot  subdue.  To  ascribe  such  dominion  to 
man  is  utterly  destructive  of  the  reality  of  grace ;  and  yet 
Trent  expressly  teaches^  that  it  is  by  the  free  consent  and 
co-operation  of  the  sinner  that  the  agency  of  God  accom- 
plishes his  conversion — that  he  is  fully  competent  to  reject 
the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit,  and  so  is,  what  every  ^ibject 
of  a  legal  dispensation  must  be,  able  to  stand  and  liable  to 
fall.  The  fourth  canon  on  justification,  though  awkwardly 
*  De  Justificatioiie,  Sessio  vi.,  cap.  v. 


OF   THE   CHURCH    OF    KOME.  385 

and  even  absurdly  expressed,  was  obviously  aimed  against 
the  Lutheran,  which  is  the  scriptural,  hypothesis,  that  man 
is  passive  in  regeneration — a  doctrine  absolutely  essential  to 
preserve  the  completeness  of  the  analogy  betwixt  Christ  and 
Adam.  There  must  be  a  double  union  with  both  in  order 
that  the  effects  of  their  respective  covenants  may  be  com- 
municated to  their  respective  seeds — a  federal  union,  which 
renders  their  public  conduct  imputable,  a  personal  union, 
through  which  it  becomes  actually  imputed.  Now  the  per- 
sonal union  with  Adam,  which  consists  in  descent  from  his 
loins,  is  unquestionably  instituted  without  any  concurrence 
on  our  part.  The  very  act  which  makes  us  men  makes  us 
his  children,  and  by  necessary  consequence  the  heirs  of  his 
guilt  and  ruin.  Why,  then,  should  not  our  union  with  Christ, 
which  is  constituted  in  effectual  calling,  be  also  independent 
of  our  own  co-operation  ?  If  our  connection  with  the  Head 
of  the  first  covenant  is  confessedly  involuntary,  why  should 
not  the  analogy  be  sustained  and  our  connection  with  the 
Head  of  the  second  be  equally  involuntary  ?  If  the  act 
which  makes  us  the  seed  of  Adam  is  prior  to  our  possession 
of  natural  being,  why  should  not  the  act  which  makes  us  the 
seed  of  Christ  be  also  prior  to  our  possession  of  spiritual 
existence  ?  The  truth  is,  we  are  new-created  in  Christ  as 
we  were  originally  created  in  Adam — we  are  the  subjects  of 
both  operations,  and  active  in  neither.  We  can  no  more  be 
our  own  spiritual  than  our  natural  fathers. 

The  attempt  of  the  Dominicans  to  reconcile  the  Triden- 
tine  theory  of  grace  with  the  doctrines  of  their  great  mas- 
ter, Augustine,  deserves  to  be  briefly  noticed,  as  it  has  led 
to  the  impression  which  the  Keviewer  himself  has  sanc- 
tioned, that  the  decrees  of  the  Fathers  are  ambiguous.^ 
The  Council  said  expressly  that  "man  can  dissent  from 
God,  exciting  and  calling  him,  if  he  should  will  to  do  so." 
This  seems  to  be  a  plain  denial  of  efficacious  grace,  and  yet, 
by  a  quibble  grossly  contradictory  and  absurd,  the  Domini- 
cans endeavoured  to  prove  that  it  was  not  inconsistent  with 
1  Princeton  Eeview,  April,  1846,  p.  342, 
Vol.  III.— 25 


386  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

their  favourite  doctrine.  They  aclniitted  that  man  might 
dissent  if  he  should  loill  to  do  so,  but  they  denied  that  it  is 
possible  to  have  such  a  will  when  the  grace  of  God  is  im- 
parted. It  is  the  essence  of  grace  to  take  from  him  the 
power  of  willing  to  the  contrary.  In  the  midst  of  this 
trivial  sophistry,  the  Dominicans  had  forgotten  what  Bellar- 
raine  commends  to  their  attention,  that  the  Council  had  pre- 
viously determined  that  man  could  reject  the  grace  itself. 
How  could  he  reject  it  without  a  previous  will  ?  "  The  im- 
possibility of  willing  to  dissent,"  continues  Bellarmine,*  "is 
utterly  inconsistent  with  free-will,  if  it  be  maintained,  as  the 
adversaries  maintain,  that  this  impossibility  of  willing  to 
dissent  results  from  the  fact  that  grace  actively  and  intrin- 
sically determines  the  will  to  the  contrary.  "We  have 
already  declared  that  man  can  believe  or  love  God  if  he  will ; 
that  he  cannot  will,  however,  without  assisting  grace.  There 
is  no  inconsistency  here,  because  free-will  is  feeble  for  good, 
and  therefore  requires  assistance.  But  when  the  assistance 
is  imparted,  we  affirm  that  man  can  will  and  not  will,  and 
tliat  in  this  way  he  is  truly  and  properly  free.  But  if,  grace 
being  present,  man  cannot  will  to  dissent,  and  grace  being 
absent  he  cannot  will  to  consent,  there  is  no  liberty  of  will, 
no  departure  from  the  opinion  of  heretics." 

The  Dominican  interpretation  is  further  contradicted  by 
notorious  facts.  For  the  space  of  a  century  and  a  half  after 
the  dissolution  of  the  Council  of  Trent  a  bitter  and  ferocious 
controversy  was  waged  in  the  Church  of  Rome  upon  the 
doctrines  of  grace ;  and  all  the  authoritative  documents  which 
were  published  during  that  period  were  decidedly  Semi- 
pelagian,  and  sometimes  worse.  They  are,  to  be  sure,  for 
the  most  part  negative,  but  they  are  negations  of  the  funda- 
mental truths  of  Christianity. 

On  the  first  of  October,  1567,  Pius  V.  issued  a  bull  con- 
demning the  seventy-six  propositions  which  were  said  to  have 
been  extracted  from  the  works  of  Baius.  It  is  nothing  to 
my  purpose  whether  or  not  this  distinguished  professor  really 
'  De  Gratia  et  Lib.  Arbit.,  Lib.  vi.,  cap.  xv. 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  387 

entertained  all  the  sentiments  which  his  enemies  ascribe  to 
him ;  it  is  enough  to  know  what  the  oracle  of  the  faithful 
pronounced  to  be  heresy.  Among  the  repudiated  propo- 
sitions are  the  following : 

XX.  No  sin  is  of  its  own  nature  venial,  but  every  sin  de- 
serves eternal  punishment. 

XXXV.  All  the  works  of  unbelievers  are  sins,  and  the 
virtues  of  the  philosophers  are  vices. 

xxxvii.  Free-will,  without  the  assistance  of  God's  grace, 
can  do  nothing  but  sin. 

xxxviii.  It  is  a  Pelagian  error  to  say  that  by  free-will 
man  can  avoid  any  sin, 

XXXIX.  What  is  done  voluntarily,  though  it  be  done 
necessarily,  is  done  freely. 

XLI.  The  only  liberty  which  the  Scriptures  recognize  is 
not  from  necessity,  but  sin. 

LXV.  To  admit  any  good  use  of  free-will,  or  any  which  is 
not  evil,  is  Pelagian  error,  and  he  does  injury  to  the  grace 
of  Christ  who  so  thinks  and  teaches. 

LX^^.  Violence  alone  is  repugnant  to  the  natural  liberty 
of  man. 

When  the  authenticity  of  the  bull  denouncing  these  propo- 
sitions had  been  seriously  called  into  question,  it  was  sol- 
emnly confirmed  by  a  constitution  of  Gregory  XIIL,  bearing 
date  the  28th  of  January,  1579. 

Upon  the  infallible  authority  of  two  popes,  Urban  YIII., 
in  1642,  and  Innocent  X.,  in  1653,  five  propositions,  pur- 
porting to  be  taken  from  the  Augustine  of  Jansen,  were  sub- 
jected to  the  odious  imputation  of  heresy.  These  propo- 
sitions asserted  the  impotency  of  man,  the  invincibility  of 
grace,  the  certainty  of  predestination,  and  the  definite  nature 
of  the  atonement.     I  give  them  in  order : 

I.  There  are  some  commands  of  God  which  righteous  and 
good  men  are  absolutely  unable  to  obey,  though  disposed  to 
do  it ;  and  God  does  not  give  them  so  much  grace  that  they 
are  able  to  observe  them. 


388  THE    VALIDITY    OF   THE    BAPTISM 

II.  Iiiward  grace  in  the  state  of  fallen  nature  cannot  be 
resisted. 

III.  To  constitute  merit  or  demerit  in  the  state  of  fallen 
nature,  man  does  not  require  liberty  from  necessity ;  liberty 
from  coercion  being  sufficient. 

IV.  The  Semi-pelagians  admitted  the  necessity  of  inward 
])reventing  grace  to  every  act,  even  the  beginning  of  faith, 
hut  their  heresy  consisted  in  this — that  they  maintained  this 
grace  to  be  such  that  the  human  will  could  resist  or  re- 
strain it. 

V.  It  is  Semi-pelagian  to  say  that  Christ  died  for  all  men. 
The  first  of  these  propositions  iSb^ondemned  as  "rash, 

impious,  blasphemous,  heretical ; "  the  second  and  third  are 
declared  to  be  "  heretical ; "  the  fourth  is  pronounced  to  be 
"  false  and  heretical ; "  and  all  the  vials  of  pontifical  abuse 
seem  to  be  emptied  on  the  fifth  ;  it  is  denominated  "  im- 
pious, blasphemous,  contumelious,  derogatory  to  piety,  and 
heretical."^ 

The  last  document  to  which  I  shall  refer  is  the  mem- 
orable constitution  Unigenitus,  signed  by  Clement  XL  at 
Rome  on  Friday,  the  8th  of  September,  1713,  the  birth- 
day, as  Romanists  assert,  of  the  Immaculate  Virgin.  This 
Bull,^  the  professed  design  of  which  was  to  condemn  one 
hundred  and  one  propositions  extracted  from  the  work  of 
Quesnel,  entitled  Moral  Reflections  upon  each  verse  of  the 
New  Testament,  contains  a  formal  reprobation  of  the  dis- 
tinguishing doctrines  of  grace.  How  far  in  each  case  the 
censure  extends  it  is  difficult  to  determine.  The  propo- 
sitions are  "respectively"  denounced  as  "folse,  captious, 
shocking,  offensive  to  pious  ears,  scandalous,  pernicious, 
rash,  injurious  to  the  Church  and  her  practice,  contumelious 
not  only  against  the  Church,  but  likewise  against  the  secular 
])owers,  seditious,  impious,  blasphemous,  suspected  of  heresy 
and  plainly  savouring  thereof,  and  likewise  favouring  here- 

'  Leydekker's  Historici  Jaiii^enismi,  pp.  126,  278.  Mosheim,  vol.  iii., 
p.  332." 

■^  I  have  made  my  extracts  from  the  cojiy  given  in  Lafitau's  History  of  it. 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  389 

tics,  heresies  and  schism,  erroneous,  bordering  very  near 
upon  heresy,  often  condemned,  and  in  fine  even  heretical 
and  manifestly  reviving  several  heresies,  and  chiefly  those 
which  are  contained  in  the  infamous  propositions  of  Jau- 
senius,  even  in  the  very  sense  in  which  those  propositions 
were  condemned."  The  term  "  respectively"  indicates  that 
this  medley  of  epithets  is  to  be  distributed — that  all  are 
not  to  be  applied  to  each  proposition,  but  only  that  each 
epithet  should  find  a  counterpart  in  some  proposition,  and 
each  proposition  be  embraced  under  some  epithet.  But  the 
allusion  to  Jansenius  shows  that,  whatever  may  be  said  of 
the  rest,  the  propositions  containing  his  doctrines  are  to  be 
regarded  as  heretical. 

Among  the  one  hundred  and  one  condemned  articles  are 
the  following  truths  of  the  Word  of  God,  numbered  as  they 
are  numbered  in  the  Bull : 

I.  What  else  remains  to  the  soul  that  has  lost  God  and 
His  grace  but  sin  and  the  consequences  of  sin,  haughty 
poverty  and  lazy  indigence — that  is,  a  general  impotence  to 
labour,  to  prayer,  and  to  every  good  work  ? 

II.  The  grace  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  efficacious  principle  of 
every  sort  of  good,  is  necessary  to  every  good  work ;  with- 
out it  nothing  either  is  done  or  can  be  done. 

V.  When  God  does  not  soften  the  heart  by  the  inward 
unction  of  His  grace,  exhortations  and  external  advantages 
serve  only  to  harden  it  the  more. 

IX.  The  grace  of  Jesus  Christ  is  sovereign ;  without  it 
we  can  never  confess  Christ,  and  with  it  we  shall  never 
deny  him. 

X.  Grace  is  the  operation  of  God's  almighty  hand,  which 
nothing  can  let  or  hinder. 

XII.  When  God  wills  to  save  a  soul  at  any  time  or  place, 
the  effect  indubitably  follows  the  determination  of  His  will. 

XIII.  Whenever  God  wills  to  save  a  soul,  and  touches  it 
with  the  inward  hand  of  His  grace,  no  human  will  resists 
Him. 

XIV.  However  remote  an  obstinate  sinner  may  be  from 


390  THE   VALIDITY    OF   THE    BAPTISM 

salvation,  whenever  Jesus  is  revealed  to  him  in  the  saving 
light  of  His  grace,  he  yields,  embraces  Him,  humbles  him- 
self and  adores  the  Saviour. 

XIX.  The  grace  of  God  is  nothing  else  than  His  omnipo- 
tent will.  This  is  the  idea  which  God  Himself  gives  us  in 
all  the  Scriptures. 

XXI.  The  grace  of  Jesus  Christ  is  strong,  mighty,  sove- 
reign, invincible,  being  the  operation  of  God's  almighty 
will,  the  consequence  and  imitation  of  the  working  of  God  in 
making  the  Son  incarnate  and  raising  Him  from  the  dead. 

XXIII.  God  has  given  us  the  idea  of  the  almighty  work- 
ing of  His  grace  in  representing  it  as  a  creation  out  of 
nothing,  and  a  resurrection  from  the  dead. 

XXX.  All  whom  God  wills  to  save  by  Christ  are  infalli- 
bly saved. 

xxxviii.  The  sinner  is  free  only  to  evil  without  the 
grace  of  the  Saviour. 

xxxix.  The  will,  without  preventing  grace,  has  light 
only  to  wander,  heat  only  for  rashness,  strength  only  to  its 
wounding.  It  is  capable  of  all  evil  and  incapable  of 
any  good. 

XLi.  Even  the  natural  knowledge  of  God,  such  as  ob- 
tained among  the  Gentile  philosophers,  must  be  ascribed  to 
God,  and  without  grace  produces  only  presumption,  vanity 
and  opposition  to  God,  instead  of  adoration,  gratitude 
and  love. 

LXix.  Faith,  its  use,  increase  and  reward,  are  wholly 
the  gift  of  God's  pure  liberality. 

LXXiii.  What  is  the  Church  but  the  congregation  of  tlie 
sons  of  God,  dwelling  in  His  bosom,  adopted  in  Christ, 
subsisting  in  His  person,  redeemed  by  His  blood,  living  by 
His  Spirit,  acting  by  His  grace,  and  waiting  for  the  grace 
of  the  future  life? 

These  documents  establish  by  the  most  conclusive  nega- 
tive testimony  that  Rome  repudiates  the  only  theory  of 
grace  which  can  bring  salvation  to  the  lost.  She  utterly 
denies  its  power.     The  terms  efficacious  grace  are  indeed 


OF    THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  391 

found  in  the  writings  of  her  cherished  theologians,  but  in  a 
sense  widely  different  from  that  which  the  Reformers  taught. 
It  is  an  efficacy  consisting  in  the  skilful  adaptation  of 
motives  on  the  part  of  God  to  the  mind  of  man,  by  which 
the  will  is  determined  in  conformity  with  the  Divine  desire. 
God  does  not  determine  it,  but  only  presents  considerations 
which  from  His  knowledge  of  the  man  He  perceives  before- 
hand will  induce  it  to  determine  itself.  It  is  the  efficacy 
not  of  power,  but  of  persuasion ;  God  acts  the  part  not  of  a 
sovereign,  but  of  an  able  orator.  "  It  cannot  be  understood/' 
says  Bellarmine,^  "how  efficacious  grace  consists  in  an 
inward  persuasion  which  may  be  spurned  by  the  will,  and 
yet  infallibly  accomplishes  its  end,  unless  we  add  that 
with  all  those  whom  God  has  infallibly  decreed  to  draw 
He  employs  a  persuasion  which  He  sees  to  be  adapted  to 
their  disposition,  and  which  He  certainly  knows  will  not 
be  despised." 

It  is  not  a  little  strange  that  Princeton  should  attribute 
to  Rome  a  "  much  higher  doctrine  as  to  the  necessity  of 
Divine  influence  than  prevails  among  many  whom  we  rec- 
ognize as  Christians,"  when  the  orthodox  portion  of  the 
Protestant  world  has  already  condemned,  her  opinions. 
The  creed  of  Rome  diff'ers  only  for  the  worse  from  the  creed 
of  the  Remonstrants ;  it  is  not  so  full  and  clear  upon  the 
subject  of  depravity,  and  much  bolder  on  the  freedom  of 
the  will.  Still  their  respective  theories  of  grace  are  sub- 
stantially the  same,  and  if  the  orthodox  world  in  the  sev- 
enteenth century  conspired  to  suppress  the  errors  of  the 
Remonstrants  as  dangerous  and  fatal,  what  magic  has 
extracted  their  malignity  in  the  lapse  of  two  hundred  years 
and  upward,  so  that  they  are  harmless  in  the  hands  of  the 
Pope  ?  So  striking  is  the  similarity  between  the  j)rinciples 
of  the  Remonstrants  and  the  decrees  of  Trent  that  I  am 
constrained  to  place  them  in  a  note  in  juxtaposition,  that  the 
reader  may  see  at  a  glance  what  Princeton  denominates  a 
"  much  higher  doctrine  as  to  the  necessity  of  Divine  influ- 
^  De  Gratia  et  Lib.  Arbit.,  Lib.  I.,  cap.  xii.,  last  sentence. 


392  THE  VALIDITY   OP   THE   BAPTISM 

ence  than  jircvails  among  many  whom  we  recognize  as 
Christians."^  Both  seem  willing  to  ascribe  everything  to 
God  but  the  conquest  of  the  will.  He  may  teach,  enlighten, 
remonstrate  and  persuade,  but  He  cannot  subdue.  The  will 
sits  as  a  sovereign  upon  her  throne,  and  can  laugh  at  all 
His  thunder. 

^  I.  "Man,"  say  the  Remonstrants,*  "has  not  saving  faith  himself,  nor 
by  virtue  of  his  own  free-will,  forasmuch  as,  being  in  a  state  of  sin,  he 
can  neither  think,  will  nor  do  by  or  of  himself  any  good,  especially  such 
as  proceeds  from  a  saving  faith.  But  it  is  necessary  he  should  be  regen- 
erated and  renewed  by  God  in  Christ  through  His  Holy  Spirit  in  his 
understanding,  will  and  all  his  faculties,  to  the  end  that  he  may  rightly 
understand,  reflect  upon,  will  and  fulfil  the  things  which  are  good  and 
which  accompany  salvation. 

II.  "But  we  maintain  that  the  grace  of  God  is  not  only  the  beginning, 
but  likewise  the  progress  and  completion,  of  all  good ;  insomuch  that  even 
the  regenerate  themselves  are  not  able  without  this  previous  or  prevent- 
ing, exciting,  concomitant,  and  consequent  grace  to  think,  will  or  effect 
any  good  thing,  or  resist  any  temptation  to  evil ;  so  that  all  good  works 
and  actions  ought  to  be  ascribed  to  God. 

III.  "  Nevertheless,  we  do  not  believe  that  all  the  zeal,  care  and  pains 
employed  by  men  in  order  to  the  working  out  their  salvation  are  before 
Faith  and  the  spirit  of  Renovation  vain  and  unprofitable,  and  even  more 
prejudicial  than  advantageous;  but  on -the  contrary  we  maintain,  that  to 
hear  the  Word  of  God,  to  be  sorry  for  and  repent  of  our  sins,  earnestly  to 
desire  saving  grace  and  the  spirit  of  RcnovJttion  (which,  however,  cannot 
be  done  without  grace),  are  not  only  not  hurtful,  but  rather  very  useful 
and  absolutely  necessary  to  the  attaining  Faith  and  the  spirit  of  Reno- 
vation. 

IV.  "The  will  has  no  power,  in  the  state  of  sin  and  before  the  call,  of 
doing  any  good  to  salvation.  And,  therefore,  we  deny  that  the  will  has, 
in  every  state  of  man,  the  liberty  or  freedom  of  willing  the  saving  good 
as  well  as  evil. 

V.  "EflUcacious  grace  whereby  men  are  converted  is  not  irrcsistilile, 
and  though  God  works  in  such  a  manner  by  His  Word  and  the  internal 
operation  of  His  Spirit  as  to  communicate  the  power  of  believing  and 
supernatural  strength,  and  even  to  cause  men  actually  to  believe,  yet, 
nevertheless,  men  may  of  themselves  reject  this  grace,  and  refuse  to 
believe,  and  consequently  be  lost  through  their  own  fault." 

"In  the  first  place,"  says  Trent,f  "the  holy  council  maintains  that  it  is 
necessary,  in  order  to  understand  the  doctrine  of  justification  truly  and 
well,  that  every  one  should  acknowledge  and  confess  that  since  all  men 

*  See  Brandt,  History  of  the  Reformation,  vol.  iii.,  book  xxxv.,  pp.  87,  88. 
t  Concil.  Trident.,  Sess.  vi.,  cap.  i.,  cap.  v.,  can.  vii. 


OF    THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  393 

If  the  creed  of  R,ome  is  fatally  unsound  in  regard  to  the 
nature  of  Effectual  Calling,  there  is  nothing  to  redeem  its 
errors,  but  much  to  heighten  its  dangers,  in  what  it  teaches 
of  the  reason,  office  and  operations  of  Faith,  in  the  produc- 
tion of  which  the  mystical  union  is  completed,  and  upon 
which  the  whole  application  of  redemption  depends.  The 
calling,  indeed,  is  never  effectual,  and  the  condition  of  the  sin- 
ner is  never  safe,  until  faith  is  actually  wrought.  To  it  all  the 
promises  of  salvation  are  addressed;  it  is  pre-eminently  the 
work  of  God,  that  which  He  requires  at  our  hands,  without 
which  it  is  impossible  to  please  Him,  with  which  it  is  im- 
possible to  be  condemned.  It  is  the  characteristic  principle 
of  Christian  life,  comprising  in  its  nature  and  results  the 
Mdiole  mystery  of  Christian  experience.  "I  am  crucified 
Math  Christ :  nevertheless  I  live ;  yet,  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth 
in  me :  and  the  life  which  I  now  live  in  the  flesh,  I  live  by 
the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved  me  and  gave  Himself 
for  me."     The  blessedness  and  joy,  the  light,  fortitude  and 

had  lost  innocence  by  Adam's  prevarication,  and  had  become  unclean, 
and,  as  the  Apostle  says,  '  by  nature  children  of  wrath,'  as  is  expressed  in 
the  decree  on  original  sin,  they  are  so  completely  the  slaves  of  sin,  and 
under  the  power  of  the  Devil  and  of  death,  that  neither  could  the  Gentiles 
be  liberated  or  rise  again  by  the  power  of  nature,  nor  even  the  Jews  by 
the  letter  of  the  law  of  Moses.  Nevertheless,  free-will  was  not  wholly 
extinct  in  them,  though  weakened  and  bowed  down. 

"  The  Council  further  declares  that  in  adult  persons  the  beginning  of 
justification  springs  from  the  preventing  grace  of  God  through  Christ 
Jesus — that  is,  from  His  calling  wherewith  they  are  called,  having  in 
themselves  no  merits — so  that  those  who  in  consequence  of  sin  were  alien- 
ated from  God  are  disposed  to  betake  themselves  to  His  method  of  justify- 
ing them  by  His  grace,  which  excites  and  helps  them,  and  with  which 
grace  they  freely  agree  and  co-operate.  Thus,  while  God  touches  the 
heart  of  man  by  the  illumination  of  His  Holy  Spirit,  man  is  not  altogether 
passive,  since  he  receives  that  influence  which  he  had  power  to  reject,  while 
on  the  other  hand  he  could  not  of  his  free  will,  without  the  grace  of  God, 
take  any  step  toward  righteousness  before  Him. 

"  Whoever  shall  affirm  that  all  works  done  before  justification,  in  what- 
ever way  performed,  are  actually  sins  and  deserve  God's  hatred,  or  that  the 
more  earnestly  a  man  labours  to  dispose  himself  for  grace  he  does  but  siu 
the  more,  let  him  be  accursed." 


394  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

peace,  the  hopes  which  stimulate  the  zeal  and  the  beauties 
which  adorn  the  character  of  those  who  love  God,  their 
change  of  state  and  the  gradual  transformation  of  their 
minds,  are  all  in  the  Scriptures  ascribed  to  faith.  With- 
out it  the  Water  and  the  Blood  are  nothing  worth ;  the  invi- 
tations of  the  Gospel,  the  monitions  of  Providence,  the  per- 
suasions of  the  ministry,  and  even  the  signs  in  the  holy 
sacraments,  are  vain  and  nugatory,  lifeless  appeals,  which 
play  around  the  head  or  amuse  the  fancy,  but  are  incapable 
of  reaching  the  heart.  The  spirit  of  faith  is  the  spirit  of 
life.  Faith  justifies  the  guilty  and  cleanses  the  impure ; 
faith  is  the  shield  in  the  panoply  of  God  which  quenches 
all  the  fiery  darts  of  the  wicked,  the  victory  which  over- 
comes the  world  and  extracts  lessons  of  experience  from 
trials  of  patience.  Faith  conquers  death  and  opens  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  to  the  triumphant  saint ;  it  is  the  sub- 
stance of  things  hoped  for,  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen. 

The  contrast  is  amazing  betwixt  the  importance  which 
the  Scriptures  everywhere  attach  to  this  grace,  and  that 
which  is  assigned  to  it  in  the  theology  of  Rome.  While, 
according  to  the  unvarying  tenor  of  the  Gospel,  which  is, 
Believe  and  be  saved,  faith  is  the  first,  second,  third  thing, 
comprehending  everything  else  in  the  department  of  per- 
sonal religion,  according  to  the  creed  of  the  Papacy  it  is  at 
best  a  very  slender  accomplishment,  having  no  necessary 
connection  with  salvation,  capable  of  existing  among  those 
who  are  without  Christ,  without  God,  and  without  hope  in 
the  world.  It  may  distinguish  as  well  the  victim  of  per- 
dition as  the  heirs  of  heaven.  The  single  fact  that  Rome 
declares  that  believers  may  be  lost,  while  the  Bible  asserts 
that  every  believer  shall  be  saved,  is  conclusive  i>roof  that 
her  theology  and  that  of  the  Bible  are  fundamentally  at 
variance. 

There  are  tw'O  principal  points,  in  connection  with  this 
subject,  in  regard  to  which  she  is  grossly  and  fatally  un- 
sound— the  relation  of  faith  to  the  Christian  life,  and  the 
immediate  reason  of  faith  itself. 


OF    THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  395 

First.  The  distinguished  eificacy  which  the  Scriptures 
uniformly  attribute  to  this  grace  does  not  depend  upon  its 
own  intrinsic  excellence,  nor  the  natural  operation  of  the 
truths,  important  as  they  are,  which  it  receives  and  assim- 
ilates. These,  however  exalted,  however  cordially  em- 
braced, however  admirably  adapted  to  generate  the  active 
principles  of  love,  hope  and  fear,  could  never  achieve  the 
splendid  results  which  proceed  from  the  influence  of  faith. 
As  an  accomplishment  of  the  spiritual  man,  an  integral 
element  of  inherent  righteousness,  charity  is  certainly 
entitled  to  precedence,  yet  charity  is  never  said  to  justify; 
it  applies  neither  the  Water  nor  the  Blood,  but  presupposes 
the  application  of  them  both.  It  is  not,  then,  as  a  grace, 
or  an  act  of  formal  obedience  to  the  authority  of  God,  that 
faith  perform  its  wonders.  The  source  of  its  power  is  not 
in  itself — in  moral  dignity  and  worth  it  is  the  least  of  graces 
— nor  in  the  propositions,  abstractly  considered,  which  it 
brings  in  contact  with  the  understanding  and  the  heart; 
the  result  of  these  could  only  be  the  production  of  dili- 
gence, zeal,  gratitude,  love,  hope  and  fear,  which,  singly  or 
combined,  avail  nothing  in  the  justification  of  the  guilty. 
The  secret  of  its  efficacy  lies  in  its  relation  to  Christ.  It  is 
a  bond  of  union  with  Him.  As  an  exercise  of  holiness  it 
has  its  appropriate  place  among  the  elements  of  personal 
obedience.  It  receives  the  whole  revelation  of  God,  and  be- 
comes the  medium  through  which  the  different  emotions 
are  excited  which  the  various  aspects  of  the  Word  are  suited 
to  inspire.  Through  it  Divine  truth  penetrates  the  heart, 
presenting  the  terrible  majesty  of  God,  to  the  consternation 
of  the  guilty,  and  disclosing  the  ineffable  tenderness  of  His 
love,  to  the  consolation  of  the  humble;  but  faith  saves  us, 
not  because  it  believes  the  truth,  but  because  it  unites  us 
as  living  members  with  a  living  Head.  It  is  not  the  be- 
liever that  lives  or  works ;  it  is  Christ  who  lives  in  him. 
He  is  our  life,  and  faith  is  the  channel  through  which  His 
grace  is  efficaciously  imparted.  He  dwells  in  us  by  His 
Spirit,  and  Me  dwell  in  Him  by  faith.    And  as  He 


396  THE    VALIDITY    OF   THE    BAPTISM 

all  the  elements  of  salvation  in  Himself — wisdom,  right- 
eousness, sanctification  and  redemption — faith,  which  cements 
a  union  with  His  person,  must  involve  communion  in  His 
graces.  As  He  is  emphatically  the  Life,  those  who  are 
possessed  of  the  Son  must  be  possessed  of  life.  We  are 
justified  by  faith,  because,  in  connecting  us  with  Christ  it 
makes  us  partakers  of  His  righteousness  and  death.  We 
are  sanctified  by  faith,  because  the  Spirit  is  communicated 
from  the  Head  to  the  members,  revealing  the  true  standard 
of  holiness  in  the  person  of  the  Son,  presenting  the  true 
motives  of  holiness  in  the  grace  and  promises  of  the  Gospel, 
implanting  operative  principles  of  holiness  in  gratitude, 
love,  hope  and  fear,  and  giving  efficacy  to  all  subordinate 
means  by  the  omnipotent  energy  of  His  will.  Faith  saves 
us,  because  it  joins  us  to  Him  who  is  salvation,  and  who  is 
able  to  save  to  the  uttermost  all  that  come  unto  God  through 
Him.  Such  is  its  potency.  Nothing  in  itself,  it  makes  us 
one  with  Christ;  by  it  we  suffer  with  Him,  we  die  with 
Him,  we  are  buried  with  Him,  we  rise  with  Him,  and  with 
Him  we  are  destined  to  reign  in  glory. 

Rome,  however,  knows  nothing  of  this  mystical  union 
with  Christ,  and  consequently  the  only  efficacy  which  she 
attributes  to  faith  in  the  application  of  redemption  is  that 
of  a  spiritual  grace,  constituting  one  of  the  elements  of  the 
formal  cause  of  justification.  It  is  a  part  of  the  righteous- 
ness in  which  the  sinner  is  accepted  before  God.  "The 
principal  reason,"  says  Bellarmine,^  "why  our  adversaries 
attribute  justification  to  faith  alone  is  because  they  suppose 
that  faith  does  not  justify  after  the  manner  of  a  cause,  or 
on  account  of  its  dignity  and  worth,  but  only  relatively,  as 
it  receives  in  believing  what  God  offers  in  the  promise. 
For  if  they  could  be  convinced  that  faith  justifies  by  pro- 
curing, meriting,  and,  in  its  own  way,  beginning  justifica- 
tion, they  would  undoubtedly  acknowledge  that  the  same 
might  be  predicated  of  love,  patience  and  otlier  good  acts. 
We  shall  prove,  therefore,  that  true  and  justifying  fiiith  is 

1  Bellarmine,  De  Justificatione,  Lib.  i.,  cap.  xvii. ;  cf.  Lib.  i.,  cap.  iii. 


OF    THE    CHURCH    OF    ROJfE.  397 

not,  as  the  adversaries  affirm,  a  naked  and  sole  apprehen- 
sion of  righteousness,  but  is  an  efficacious  cause  of  justifi- 
cation. All  the  arguments  to  this  point  may  be  reduced 
to  three  heads.  The  first  shall  be  taken  from  those  testi- 
monies which  teach  that  faith  is  a  cause  of  justification  in 
general,  the  second  those  which  prove  that  in  faith  justifi- 
cation is  begun,  the  third  from  those  which  demonstrate 
that  by  faith  we  please  God,  and  procure  and  in  some  way 
merit  justification."  In  developing  these  arguments  Bel- 
larmine  repeatedly  ridicules  the  idea  that  faith  is  an  instru- 
ment which  apprehends  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  Ac- 
cording to  him,  it  contributes  to  our  justification  only  in  so 
far  as  it  is  an  act  of  righteousness  itself — its  value  dej^end- 
ing  not  upon  its  relation  to  Christ,  but  upon  its  own  in- 
trinsic excellence.  Its  inherent  dignity  and  worth  are  an 
element  of  personal  holiness.  To  the  same  purport  the 
Council  of  Trent  declares  that^  "we  are  said  to  be  justified 
by  faith,  because  faith  is  the  beginning  of  human  salvation 
— the  foundation  and  root  of  all  justification,  without  which 
it  is  impossible  to  please  God  and  come  into  the  fellowship 
of  His  children."  In  other  words,  faith  is  the  first  grace 
which  among  adults  enters  into  the  disposition  or  the  state 
of  heart  which  is  preparatory  to  the  reception  of  this  great 
blessing.  It  is  the  first  element  of  righteousness  which  is 
infused  into  the  soul,  and,  as  being  first  and  intimately  con- 
nected with  all  the  rest,  it  is  the  root  and  foundation  of  a 
holy  life.  But  its  only  influence  is  that  which  it  possesses 
as  an  inward  grace,  meritorious  in  itself,  and  capable, 
through  the  truth  which  it  embraces,  of  generating  other 
motions  of  good.  But  as  the  righteousness  in  which  we 
are  accepted  must  correspond  to  all  the  requisitions  of  the 
law,  and  as  faith  alone  is  only  a  partial  obedience,  Rome 
teaches  that  it  must  be  combined  with  other  graces,  par- 
ticularly with  charity,  in  order  to  secure  our  justification. 
Charity  indeed  she  pronounces  to  be  the  end,  perfection  and 
form  of  all  other  virtues.  Without  it,  faith  is  unfinished 
1  Trident.  Concil.,  Sess.  vi.,  cap.  viii. 


398  THE   VALIDITY    OF   THE    BAPTISM 

and  dead,  incapable  of  meriting  life  or  of  commending  to 
the  favour  of  God. 

If  there  be  any  one  doctrine  of  the  Bible  against  which 
Rome  is  particularly  bitter,  it  is  that  we  are  justified  by 
faith  alone,  without  the  deeds  of  the  law.     This  principle 
strikes  at  the  root  of  the  whole  system  of  infused  and  inherent 
righteousness.     It  removes  all  occasion  of  gloiying  in  the 
flesh.     It  prostrates   the   sinner   in   the  dust,  and   makes 
Christ  the  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  end, 
the  all-in-all  of  human  hope.     Hence,  Trent  enumerates  no 
less  than  seven  acts^  as  constituting  the  disposition  prepar- 
atory to  the  reception  of  justification,  among  which  faith 
is  found,  and  it  entitled  to  no  other  pre-eminence  than  that 
it  is  the  first  in  the  series,  having,  from  the  nature  of  its 
operations,  a  tendency  and  fitness  to  excite  the  rest.    Hence, 
also,  it  pronounces  2  its  anathema  upon  all  who,  in   con- 
formity with  the  Scriptures,  shall  affirm  "  that  the  ungodly 
is  justified  by  faith  only,  so  that  it  is  to  be  understood  that 
nothing  else  is  to  be  required  to  co-operate  therewith  in 
order  to  obtain  justification,  and  that  it  is  on  no  account 
necessary  that  he  should  prepare  and  dispose  himself  to  the 
effort  of  his  own  will."     Hence,  too,  the  doctrine  of  impu- 
tation is  condemned,  being  consistent  with  no  other  hypo- 
thesis  but  that  which   makes  faith  a  bond  of  union  with 
Christ  as  a  federal  Head,  appropriating  His  obedience  and 
pleading  the  merits  of  His  death.    "  Whosoever  shall  affirm 
that  men  are  justified  only  by  the  imputation  of  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  or  the  remission  of  sin,  to  the  exclusion 
1  Trident.  Concil.,  Sess.  vi.,  cap.  vi.     Bellarmine  remarks— De  Justifi- 
catione,  Lib.  i.,  cap.  xii.— "  The  adversaries,  therefore,  as  we  have  before 
said,  teach  that  justification  is  acquired  or  apprehended  by  faith  alone. 
Catholics,  on  the  other  hand,  and  especially  the  Tridentine  Synod,  which 
all  Catholics  acknowledge  as  a  mistress  (Sess.  vi.,  cap.  6),  enumerates 
seven  acts  by  which  the  ungodly  are  disposed  to  righteousness:  faith, 
fear,  hope,  love,  repentance,  the  purpose  of  receiving  the  sacrament,  and 
the'purpose  of  leading  a  new  life  and  keeping  the  commandments  of 
God."     This  opinion  he  endeavours  in   several   successive   chapters  to 
establish. 

-  Cone.  Trident.,  Sess.  vi.,  can.  ix. 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  EOME.  399 

of  grace  and  charity,  which  is  shed  abroad  in  their  hearts 
and  inheres  in  them,  or  that  the  grace  by  which  we  are 
justified  is  only  the  favour  of  God,  let  him  be  accursed."  ^ 

It  cannot  fail  to  be  observed  that  the  Romish  theory  of 
faith  is  peculiarly  unfavourable  to  the  cultivation  of  humil- 
ity. Abstracting  the  attention  from  the  fullness  and  suf- 
ficiency of  Christ,  and  dignifying  personal  obedience  into  a 
meritorious  cause  of  salvation,  it  must  bloat  the  heart  with 
spiritual  pride,  and  generate  a  temper  of  invidious  com- 
parison with  others,  equally  fatal  to  the  charity  Avhich 
thinketh  no  evil  and  the  self-abasement  which  should  cha- 
racterize debtors  to  grace.  When  the  efficacy  of  faith  is 
attributed  to  the  relation  which  it  institutes  with  Christ,  it 
is  felt  to  be  nothing  in  itself;  every  blessing  is  ascribed  to 
the  sovereign  mercy  of  God;  it  is  no  more  the  sinner  that 
lives,  but  Christ  lives  in  him;  it  is  no  more  the  sinner  that 
works,  but  Christ  works  in  him.  The  Divine  Redeemer 
becomes  the  all-in-all  of  his  salvation — his  wisdom,  right- 
eousness, sanctification  and  redemption.  It  is  only  when 
faith  is  apprehended  as  a  bond  of  union  with  Christ  that  it 
produces  the  effect  which  Paul  attributes  to  it,  of  excluding 
boasting;  in  every  other  view  it  furnishes  a  pretext  for 
glorying  in  the  flesh.  As  an  instrument  it  exalts  the  Re- 
deemer; as  a  meritorious  grace,  entering  into  the  formal 
cause  of  justification,  it  exalts  the  sinner:  as  an  instrument 
it  leads  us  to  exclaim  that  by  the  grace  of  God  we  are 
what  Ave  are;  as  a  meritorious  grace,  to  thank  God  that  Ave 
are  not  as  other  men. 

Secondly.  The  Papal  creed  is  hardly  less  unsound  in 
reference  to  the  nature,  than  it  is  in  reference  to  the  office, 
of  faith. 

If  there  be  anything  in  the  Scriptures  clearly  re\^ealed 
and  earnestly  inculcated,  it  is  that  the  faith  by  Avhich  Ave 
apprehend  the  Redeemer  as  the  foundation  of  our  hope 
depends  upon  the  immediate  testimony  of  God.  It  is  super- 
natural in  its  evidence,  as  Avell  as  supernatural  in  its  origin. 
^  Cone.  Trident.,  Sess.  vi.,  can.  xi. 


400  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

The  record  which  God  has  given  of  His  Sou  bears  upon  its 
face  impressions  of  Divinity  which  are  alike  suited  to  com- 
mand the  assent  of  the  understanding  and  to  captivate  the 
affections  of  the  heart. 

The  argument  by  which  we  ascend  from  redemption  to 
its  Author  is  analogous  to  that  (though  infinitely  stronger 
in  degree)  which  conducts  us  from  nature  to  nature's  God. 
The  Almighty  never  works  without  leaving  traces  of 
Himself;  a  godlike  peculiarity  distinguishes  all  His  opera- 
tions. He  cannot  ride  upon  the  heavens  but  His  name 
Jah  is  proclaimed;  the  invisible  things  of  Him,  from  the 
creation  of  the  world,  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by 
the  things  that  are  made,  even  His  eternal  power  and  God- 
head. But  if  the  material  w^orkmanship  of  God  contains 
such  clear  and  decisive  traces  of  its  Divine  Author — if  the 
heavens  declare  His  glory  and  the  firmament  showeth  his 
handiwork — if  sun,  moon  and  stars,  in  their  appointed 
orbits,  demonstrate  an  eternal  Creator,  and  leave  the  Atheist, 
skeptic  and  idolater  without  excuse — much  more  shall  that 
stupendous  economy  of  grace  which  bears  pre-eminently 
the  burden  of  His  name  reveal  the  perfections  of  His  cha- 
racter and  authenticate  the  Divinity  of  its  source.  The 
evidence  that  it  sprang  from  the  bosom  of  God,  and  that  its 
voice  is  the  harmony  of  the  world,  must  be  sought  in  itself. 
It  stands  a  temple  not  built  with  hands,  bearing  upon  its 
portals  the  sublime  inscription  of  God's  eternal  purpose,  of 
His  wisdom,  power,  justice,  goodness  and  grace.  It  is  the 
palace  of  the  great  King,  where  His  brightest  glories  are 
disclosed.  His  choicest  gifts  bestowed.  Jesus  is  seen,  is  felt 
to  be  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  first-born  of  every 
creature.  The  believer  has  only  to  look  upon  His  face,  and 
he  beholds  His  glory  as  of  the  only-begotten  of  the  Father, 
full  of  grace  and  truth.  God,  who  commanded  the  light 
to  shine  out  of  darkness,  has  shined  into  our  hearts,  and  re- 
vealed the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in 
the  face  of  Jesus  Christ. 

But  while  redemption  contains  the  evidence  of  its  lieav- 


I 


OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  401 

enly  origin,  such  is  the  deplorable  darkness  of  the  human 
understanding  in  regard  to  things  that  pertain  to  God,  and 
such  the  fearful  alienation  of  men  from  the  perfection  of 
His  character,  that  though  the  light  shines  conspicuously 
among  them,  they  are  yet  unable  to  comprehend  its  rays. 
Christ  crucified   proves  to  all,  in  their  natural  condition, 
whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  a  stumbling-block  or  foolishness. 
Hence,  to  the  production  of  faith   there  must  be  a  heavenly 
calling.    In  order  that  the  infallible  evidence  which  actually 
exists  in  the  truth   itself  may  accomplish  its  appropriate 
eflects,  the  eternal   Spirit,  who  sends   forth  His  cherubim 
and  seraphim  to  touch  the  lips  of  whom  He  pleases,  must 
be  graciously  vouchsafed  to  illuminate  the  darkened  mind, 
and  manifest  in  the  provision  of  the  Gospel  the  power  of 
God  and  the  wisdom  of   God  unto  salvation.     It  is  the 
Spirit  that  quickeneth;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing.     Re- 
demption is  a  spiritual  mystery,  and  faith  is  the  spiritual 
eye,  supernaturally  imparted,  which  beholds  it.     He  that 
believeth  hath  the  witness  in  himself:    the    divine    illumi- 
nation of  the  Spirit  is  the  immediate  and  only  reason  of  a 
true  and  living  faith.     Other  arguments  may  convince,  but 
they  cannot  convert;  they  may  produce  opinion,  but  not  the 
faith  of  the  Gospel;  and  those  who,  in  their  blindness,  rely 
upon  miracles  and  prophecy — upon  the  collateral  and  in- 
cidental  proofs  with   which  Christianity  is   triumphantly 
vindicated  from  the  assaults  of  skeptics  and  infidels— they 
who  rely  upon  the  fallible  deductions  of  reason  to  generate 
an  infallible  assurance  of  faith  have  yet  to  learn  in  what 
the  testimony  of  God  consists  which  establishes  the  hearts 
of  His  children.     Their  witness  is  not  within  themselves ; 
it  lies  without  them — in  historical  records,  musty  traditions 
and  the  voice  of  antiquity. 

The  Romish  doctors  are  not  reluctant  to  admit  that  faith 

is  supernatural  in  its  origin.     "Whoever  shall  affirm,"  says 

Trentji  "that  man  is  able  to  believe,  hope,  love  or  repent, 

as  he  ought,  so  as  to  attain  to  the  grace  of  justification, 

^  Cone.  Trident.,  Sess.  vi.,  can.  iii. 


Vol.  in. 


402  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

Avithout  the  preventing  influence  and  aid  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  let  him  be  accursed."  "It  is  impossible,"  says 
Stapleton,  as  quoted  by  Owen,^  "to  produce  any  act  of 
faith,  or  to  believe  with  faith,  rightly  so  called,  without 
special  grace  and  the  Divine  infusion  of  the  gift  of  faith." 
"  This  is  firmly  to  be  held,"  says  Melchior  Canus  ^ — I  again 
quote  from  Owen — "  that  human  authority,  and  all  the  mo- 
tives before  mentioned,  or  any  other  which  may  be  used 
by  him  who  proposeth  the  object  of  faith  to  be  believed, 
are  not  sufficient  causes  of  believing  as  we  are  obliged  to 
believe;  but  there  is  moreover  necessary  an  internal,  efficient 
cause,  moving  us  to  believe,  which  is  the  especial  help  or 
aid  of  God.  Wherefore  all  external  human  persuasions  or 
arguments  are  not  sufficient  causes  of  faith,  however  the 
things  of  faith  may  be  sufficiently  proposed  by  men ;  there 
is  moreover  necessary  an  internal  cause — that  is,  a  certain 
Divine  light,  inciting  to  believe,  or  certain  internal  eyes 
to  see,  given  us  by  the  grace  of  God."  But  there  is  a 
still  more  remarkable  passage  in  Gregory  of  Valentia.^ 
"Whereas,"  saith  he,  "we  have  hitherto  pleaded  arguments 
for  the  authority  of  Christian  doctrine,  which,  even  by 
themselves,  ought  to  suffice  prudent  persons  to  induce  their 
minds  to  belief;  yet  I  know  not  whether  there  be  not  an 
argument  greater  than  they  all — namely,  that  those  who  are 
truly  Christians  do  find  or  feel  by  experience  their  minds 
so  affiscted  in  this  matter  of  faith  that  they  are  moved  (and 
obliged)  firmly  to  believe,  neither  for  any  argument  that  we 
have  used,  nor  for  any  of  the  like  sort  that  can  be  found 
out  by  reason,  but  for  somewhat  else,  which  persuades  our 
minds  in  another  manner,  and  far  more  effisctually  than  any 
arguments  whatever."  "  It  is  God  Himself,  who,  by  the 
voice  of  His  revelation,  and  by  a  certain  internal  instinct 
and  impulse,  witnesseth  unto  the  minds  of  men  the  truth 
of  Christian  doctrine  or  of  the  Holy  Scripture."     And  the 

'  Owen  on  the  Reason  of  Faith :  Works,  vol.  iii.,  p.  304. 
-  ll.iil.,  pp.  364,  365. 
3  Ibid.,  p.  365. 


OF   THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  403 

same  doctrine  is  maintained  by  Bellarmine  in  the  second 
chapter  of  his  sixth  book  on  grace  and  free-will. 

All  this  seems  wonderfully  orthodox.  But  it  is  a  de- 
ceitful homage  rendered  to  the  work  of  the  Spirit.  Rome 
grants  that  He  enables  us  to  believe,  but  departs  widely 
from  the  truth,  and  assigns  to  the  Spirit  a  mean  and  sub- 
sidiary office,  when  she  undertakes  to  specify  the  evidence 
through  which  He  produces  a  living  faith.  The  immediate 
end  of  His  illumination,  according  to  her  theology,  is  not  to 
reveal  the  evidence  which  lies  concealed  in  the  Gospel  itself, 
but  to  ascertain  the  inquirer  of  the  Divinity  of  her  own  tes- 
timony. The  office  of  the  Spirit  is  to  prove  that  she  is  the 
prophet  of  God,  His  lively  oracle,  which  must  be  devoutly 
heard  and  implicitly  obeyed.  The  testimony  of  the  Church, 
and  not  of  God's  Sj^irit,  she  makes  to  be  the  immediate  and 
adequate  ground  of  faith.  Whatever  light  the  Spirit  im- 
parts is  reflected  from  her  face,  and  not  from  the  face  of 
Jesus  Christ ;  and  whatever  witness  the  believer  possesses, 
he  possesses  in  her,  and  not  in  himself.  Hence  Stapleton,^ 
while  he  admits  the  necessity  of  Divine  illumination,  gives 
it  a  principal  reference  to  the  judgment  and  testimony  of 
the  Church.  "  The  secret  testimony  of  the  Spirit  is  alto- 
gether necessary,  that  a  man  may  believe  the  testimony  and 
judgment  of  the  Church  about  the  Scriptures."  Bellarmine 
says,^  "  in  order  that  f  lith  may  be  certain  in  relation  to  its 
object,  two  infallible  causes  are  required — the  cause  revealing 
the  articles,  and  the  cause  proposing  or  declaring  the  articles 
revealed.  For  if  he  who  reveals,  and  upon  whose  authority 
we  rely,  can  be  deceived,  faith  is  obviously  rendered  uncer- 
tain. Therefore,  the  cause  revealing  should  be  none  other 
than  God.  And,  by  parity  of  reason,  if  he  who  proposes  or 
declares  the  articles  revealed  is  liable  to  error,  and  can  pro- 
pose anything  as  a  Divine  revelation  which  in  fact  is  not 
so,  faith  will  be  rendered  wholly  uncertain.  Mohammedans 
and  heretics  therefore,  although  they  suppose  that  they  be- 

iQwen  on  the  Eeason  of  Faith:  Works,  vol.  iii.,  p.  3(35. 
^  Bellarmine,  De  Grat.  et  Lib.  Arbit.,  Lib.  vi.,  cap.  iii. 


404  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

lieve  on  the  ground  of  a  Divine  revelation,  yet  in  fact  they 
do  not,  but  simply  believe  because  they  rashly  choose  to 
believe,  inasmuch  as  they  acknowledge  not  a  cause  infallibly 
proposing  and  declaring  the  revelation  of  God.  For  if  one 
should  inquire  of  the  heretics  how  they  know  that  God  has 
revealed  this  or  that  article,  they  will  answer,  From  the 
Scriptures.  If  it  should  be  further  inquired  how  they 
know  that  their  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  correct,  seeing 
that  it  is  differently  expounded  by  different  persons,  or  how 
they  ever  know  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  Word  of  God, 
they  can  answer  nothing  but  that  this  is  their  opinion.  They 
reject  the  judgment  of  the  Church,  which  alone  God  has 
declared  to  be  infallible  by  numberless  signs  and  prodigies 
and  many  other  testimonies,  and  every  one  claims  for  him- 
self the  right  of  interpreting  Divine  Revelation.  Who, 
without  great  rashness,  can  believe  his  own  private  judg- 
n;^ent  of  Divine  things  to  be  infallible,  since  such  infallibility 
can  be  proved  neither  by  Divine  promise  nor  human  reason  ? 
Catholics,  on  the  other  hand,  have  a  faith  altogether  certain 
and  infallible,  since  it  rests  on  the  authority  of  revelation. 
That  God  has  given  the  revelation  they  are  equally  assured, 
since  they  hear  the  Church  declaring  the  fact,  which  they  are 
certain  cannot  err,  since  its  testimony  is  confirmed  by  signs  and 
wonders  and  manifold  arguments."  Whatever  the  Church 
authoritatively  enjoins  is  a  material  object  of  faith.  "  The 
authority  of  the  Church,"  says  Dens,  "  affords  the  first  and 
sufficient  argument  of  credibility."^  The  Rules  of  Faith 
are  divided  by  Dens^  into  two  classes,  animate  and  inanimate, 
the  latter  comprehending  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  tradition, 
and  the  former  embracing  the  Church,  General  Councils  and 
the  Pope.  "  The  animate  rule  of  faith  is  that  wliich  declares 
to  us  the  truths  which  God  has  revealed,  so  that  it  may  pro- 
pose them  with  sufficient  authority  to  be  believed  as  it  Avere 

1  Dens,  De  Virtutibns,  vol.  ii.,  No.  18,  p.  27. 

'  Dens,  De  Kegulis  Fidei,  vol.  ii..  No.  59,  p.  93.    See  particularly  De 
Resolutione  Fidei,  vol.  ii..  No.  20,  p.  30. 


OF   THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  405 

by  a  Divine  faith."  Even  Erasmus/  half-reformer  as  he 
was.  could  utter  such  detestable  language  as  the  following : 
"  "With  me  the  authority  of  the  Church  has  so  much  weight 
that  I  could  be  of  the  same  opinion  with  Arians  and  Pela- 
gians, had  the  Church  signified  its  approbation  of  their  doc- 
trines. It  is  not  that  the  words  of  Christ  are  not  to  me 
sufficient,  but  it  should  not  seem  strange  if  I  follow  the 
interpretation  of  the  Church,  through  whose  authority  it 
is  that  I  believe  the  canonical  Scriptures.  Others  may  have 
more  genius  and  courage  than  I,  but  there  is  nothing  in 
which  I  acquiesce  more  confidently  than  the  decisive  judg- 
ment of  the  Church." 

It  is  a  point  on  which  all  Romanists  are  heartily  agreed, 
that  somewhere  in  the  Papacy,  either  in  the  Pope,  a  General 
Council,  or  the  Pope  and  a  General  Council  combined,  an 
infallible  tribunal  exists,  whose  prerogative  it  is  to  settle 
controversies  and  to  determine  questions  of  faith.  From  its 
decisions  there  is  no  appeal ;  its  voice  is  the  voice  of  God — - 
it  is  the  Urim  and  Thummim  of  the  Christian  Church. 
The  possession  of  such  a  living  oracle  is  made  the  distin- 
guishing glory  of  their  sect.  The  doctors  of  Rome  are 
accustomed  to  boast  that  in  consequence  of  this  boon  they 
have  the  advantage  of  an  infallible  faith,  while  Protestants 
are  doomed  to  the  uncertainty  of  opinion  or  the  delusions 
of  a  private  spirit.  Their  Divine  faith  consequently  de- 
pends upon  the  testimony  of  an  infallible  church,  and  not 
upon  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  of  truth.  They  believe  be- 
cause the  Church  declares,  and  of  course  must  believe  what 
the  Church  declares.  The  practical  working  of  the  system 
is  to  make  every  parish  priest  and  every  father  confessor  a 
lord  alike  of  the  conscience  and  understanding.  Every 
man,  upon  the  Papal  hypothesis,  no  matter  what  may  be  his 
condition  and  attainments,  has  infallible  evidence  that  the 
material  objects  of  his  faith  are  Divine  revelations.  But  to 
the  great  mass  of  private  individuals  the  testimony  of  their 

1  Erasmus,  as  quoted  in  Waddington's  History  of  the  Eeformation,  vol. 
ii.,  chap,  xxiii.,  p.  165. 


406  THE    VALIDITY   OF    THE   BAPTISM 

priests  or  confessors  Jf  all  the  evideuce  that  they  can  have, 
and  hence  these  priests  and  confessors  must  themselves  be 
infallible.  "  Though  there  have  been  infinite  disputes,"  says 
a  writer  in  the  Edinburgh  Review,  "  as  to  where  the  infalli- 
bility resides,  Avhat  are  the  doctrines  it  has  definitively  pro- 
nounced true,  and  who  to  the  individual  is  the  infallible  ex- 
pounder of  what  is  thus  infallibly  pronounced  infallible, 
yet  he  who  receives  this  doctrine  in  its  integrity  has  nothing 
more  to  do  than  to  eject  his  reason,  sublime  his  faith  into 
credulity,  and  reduce  his  creed  to  these  two  comprehensive 
articles  :  '  I  believe  whatsoever  the  Church  believes  ;'  '  I  be- 
lieve that  the  Church  believes  whatsoever  my  father  con- 
fessor believes  that  she  believes.'  For  thus  he  reasons : 
Nothing  is  more  certain  than  whatsoever  God  says  is  infalli- 
bly true ;  it  is  infallibly  true  that  the  Church  says  just  what 
God  says ;  it  is  infallibly  true  that  what  the  Church  says  is 
known ;  and  it  is  infallibly  true  that  my  father  con- 
fessor or  the  parson  of  the  next  parish  is  an  infallible  ex- 
positor of  what  is  thus  infallibly  known  to  be  the  Church's 
infallible  belief,  or  M'hat  God  has  declared  to  be  infallibly 
true.  If  any  one  of  the  links,  even  the  last,  in  this  strange 
sorites  be  su})posed  unsound,  if  it  be  not  true  that  the  priest 
is  an  infallible  expounder  to  the  individual  of  the  Church's 
infallibility,  if  his  judgment  be  only  'private  judgment,' 
we  come  back  at  once  to  the  ]ierplexities  of  the  common 
theory  of  private  judgment." 

Now,  as  the  whole  doctrine  of  Papal  inflillibility  is  a 
fiction,  all  pretences  to  a  Divine  illumination  which  reveals 
it  must  be  a  delusion  of  the  Devil,  and  that  faith  Avhich 
rests  upon  nothing  but  the  testimony  of  men,  whether  col- 
lectively or  individually,  whether  called  a  church,  pope  or 
council,  is  human,  earthly,  fallible — it  is  not  the  faith  of 
God's  elect.  The  degree  of  assent  should  rise  no  higher 
than  the  evidence  which  produces  it ;  and  as  the  llomanist 
can  never  be  assured  that  his  Church  is  inspired,  he  can 
never  have  assurance,  according  to  his  princii)les,  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Saviour  of  men,  much  less  can  he  be  assured 


OF    THE    CHURCH    OF   ROME.  407 

of  his  own  interest  in  the  Redeemer.  Doubt,  perplexity, 
apprehension  and  uncertainty  must  characterize  his  whole 
Christian  experience.^  As  faith  is  measured  by  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Church,  and  it  is  not  the  office  of  the  Church  to 
disclose  the  state  of  individuals,  none  can  be  certain  of  their 
own  conversion  or  order  their  cause  with  confidence  before 
God.  They  may  hope  for  the  best,  but  still,  after  all,  it  may 
be  their  fate  to  endure  the  worst.  Unquestionably,  the  direct 
witness  of  the  Spirit  to  the  fact  of  our  conversion  is  one  of  the 
most  comfortable  elements  of  Christian  experience.  It  is 
the  only  evidence  which  is  productive  of  full  and  triumphant 
assurance ;  and  yet  uj^on  the  hypothesis  of  Rome,  which 
interposes  the  Church  betwixt  the  sinner  and  Christ,  it  is 
difficult  to  conceive  how  the  Spirit  can  impart  this  testimony 
to  the  hearts  of  God's  children.  It  is,  therefore,  in  con- 
sistency with  the  analogy  of  her  faith  that  she  denounces  her 
anathema "  upon  those  who  pretend  to  assert  that  they  know 
that  they  have  passed  from  death  unto  life  by  the  Spirit 
which  God  hath  given  them.  ''  It  is  on  no  account  to  be 
maintained  that  those  who  are  really  justified  ought  to  feel 
fully  assured  of  the  fact  without  any  doubt  whatever,  or 
that  none  are  absolved  and  justified  but  those  who  believe 
themselves  to  be  so ;  or  that,  by  this  faith  only,  absolution 
and  justification  are  procured,  as  if  he  who  does  not  believe 
this  doubts  the  promise  of  God  and  the  efficacy  of  the  death 
and  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  For  while  no  godly  person 
ought  to  doubt  the  mercy  of  God,  the  merit  of  Christ  or 
the  virtue  and  efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  so,  on  the  other 
hand,  whosoever  considers  his  own  infirmity  and  corruption 
may  doubt  and  fear  whether  he  is  in  a  state  of  grace,  since 
no  one  can  certainly  and  infallibly  know  that  he  has  ob- 
tained the  grace  of  God." 

So  important  an  element  of  personal  religion  is  the  direct 
witness  of  the  Spirit  that  where  it  is  bordially  embraced  it 

^See  this  subject  discussed  in  Dens,  De  Justificatione,  vol.  ii.,  No.  31, 
p.  452,  seq. 

^  Cone.  Trident.,  Sess.  vi.,  cap.  ix. 


408  THE   VALIDITY   OF   THE   BAPTISM 

will  infuse  vitality  into  a  dead  system,  counteract  the  prin- 
ciples of  a  professed  Remonstrant,  and  mould  his  experience 
into  a  type  of  doctrine  Avhich  he  ostensibly  rejects.  It  is 
the  redeeming  feature  of  modern  Arminianism ;  to  it  the 
school  of  Wesley  is  indebted  for  its  power;  it  is  a  green 
spot  in  the  desert,  a  refreshing  brook  in  the  wilderness. 
Wherever  it  penetrates  the  heart  it  engenders  a  spirit  of 
dependence  upon  God,  a  practical  conviction  of  human 
imbecility,  and  an  earnest  desire  for  supernatural  expres- 
sions of  Divine  favour.  It  maintains  a  constant  commu- 
nion with  the  Father  of  lights,  an  habitual  anxiety  to  walk 
witii  God,  which,  whatever  may  be  the  theory  of  grace, 
keeps  the  soul  in  a  posture  of  prayer,  and  cherishes  a  tem- 
per congenial  with  devotion  and  holiness.  He  that  seeks 
for  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  nuist  wait  upon  God ;  and  he 
that  obtains  it  has  learned  from  the  fruitlessness  of  his  own 
efforts,  his  hours  of  darkness  and  desertion,  his  long  agony 
and  conflicts,  that  it  is  a  boon  bestowed  in  sovereignty,  the 
gift  of  unmerited  grace.  It  is  through  this  doctrine  that 
the  personality  of  the  Spirit  as  an  element  of  Christian 
experience  is  most  distinctly  presented.  It  compels  us  to 
adore  Him  as  a  living  Agent  working  according  to  the 
counsel  of  His  will,  and  not  to  underrate  Him  as  a  mere 
influence  connecting  moral  results  with  their  causes.  Rome, 
consequently,  in  discarding  this  doctrine  from  her  creed,  has 
discarded  the  only  princi})le  which  could  impregnate  the 
putrid  mass  of  her  corruptions  with  the  seeds  of  health 
and  vigour. 

Thirdly.  Not  satisfied  with  displacing  faith  from  its 
proper  position,  and  corrupting  the  evidence  by  which  it  is 
produced,  Rome  proceeds  to  still  greater  abominations  in 
ascribing  to  the  sacraments  the  same  results  in  the  applica- 
tion of  redemption  which  the  Scriptures  are  accustomed  to 
ascribe  to  faith.  The  mode  of  operation,  hoM'cver,  is  vastly 
different.  The  sacraments,  according  to  the  Papal  hypo- 
thesis, are  i)ossessed  of  an  inherent  efficacy  to  generate  tiie 
graces  which  render  us  acceptable  to  God,  while  faith,  accord- 


OF    THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  409 

ing  to  the  scriptural  hypothesis,  makes  us  oue  with  Christ. 
The  sacranieuts,  accordiug  to  Rome,  euable  us  to  live. 
Faith,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  makes  us  die,  and  Christ 
lives  in  us.  The  sacraments,  according  to  Rome,  are 
efficient  causes  of  salvation.  Faith,  according  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, is  but  an  instrument  which  appropriates  and  applies 
it.  In  the  operation  of  the  sacraments,  therefore,  Rome 
combines  the  work  of  the  Spirit  and  the  functions  of  faith. 
By  baptism  we  are  alike  regenerated  and  justified ;  what- 
ever takes  place  before  the  administration  of  the  ordinance 
is  only  in  the  way  of  preparation  :  that  which  crowns  the 
whole,  and  actually  introduces  us  into  a  state  of  favour,  is 
the  reception  of  the  sacrament.^  Those,  too,  who  subse- 
quently to  baptism  have  fallen  into  mortal  sin  are  recov- 
ered from  their  error,  not  by  the  renewed  exercise  of  faith 
in  the  Son  of  God,  but  by  the  fictitious  sacrament  of  pen- 
ance. The  weak  are  established,  not  by  looking  unto 
Jesus,  the  Author  and  Finisher  of  faith,  and  praying  for 
the  unction  from  the  Holy  One  which  shall  enable  them  to 
know  all  things,  but  by  submitting  to  episcopal  manipula- 
tion and  trusting  to  episcopal  anointing.  If  the  soul  feeds 
upon  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Redeemer,  it  is  not  as  the 
food  of  faith  to  the  spiritual  man,  but  the  food  of  sense  to 
the  natural  man,  which,  instead  of  uniting  us  to  Christ, 
assimilates  Him  to  our  mortal  flesh.  Her  ministers  are 
called  to  her  altars  by  a  sacrament;  a  sacrament  blesses  the 
marriage  of  her  children ;  her  first  office  to  the  living  is  a 
sacrament,  her  last  office  to  the  dying  is  a  sacrament,  and 
she  follows  the  dead  into  the  invisible  world  with  sacra- 
mental sorcery.  Her  power  to  bless,  to  justify  and  save 
depends  upon  her  sacraments;  these  constitute  her  spiritual 
strength,  these  are  her  charms,  her  wands  of  si)iritual 
enchantment. 

If  Rome  were  sound  upon  every  other  point,  her  errors 
in  regard  to  the  application  of  redemption  are  enough  to 
condemn  her.     AMiat  though  she  speak  the  truth  as  to  the 
^  Cone.  Trident.,  Ses.s.  vi.,  oai>.  vii. 


410  THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    BAPTISM 

essential  elements  of  salvation,  yet  if  she  directs  to  an  im- 
proper method  of  obtaining  them,  she  still  leaves  us  in  the 
gall  of  bitterness  and  in  the  bonds  of  iniquity. 

The  application  of  redemption, — this  is  to  us  the  question 
of  life  and  death,  and  a  wrong  answer  here  permanently 
persisted  in  must  be  irretrievably  fatal.  Christ  will  profit 
none  who  are  not  united  to  Him  by  faith.  Baptism  will 
not  save  us ;  confirmation  will  not  impart  to  us  the  Spirit ; 
the  eucharist  is  an  empty  pageant,  penance  a  delusion,  and 
extreme  unction  a  snare,  without  the  faith  of  God's  elect. 
Christ  is  the  power  of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  God  unto 
salvation  to  believers — ^to  believers  only,  and  not  to  the  bap- 
tized— and  whatsoever  creed  sets  aside  the  office  of  faith 
practically  introduces  another  Gospel.  In  Christ  Jesus 
neither  circumcision  avails  anything,  nor  uncircumcision, 
but  faith  which  works  by  love.  Here,  then,  is  the  immeas- 
urable distance  between  the  way  of  life  proposed  in  the 
Scriptures  and  that  which  is  proposed  in  the  Papacy.  The 
Bible  says,  "  Believe  and  be  saved ;"  Rome  says.  Be  bap- 
tized and  be  justified.  It  is  the  difference  between  the 
Spirit  and  the  flesh,  the  form  of  godliness  and  its  power. 

I  have  now  finished  what  I  intended  to  say  upon  the 
Romish  creed.  Having  been  compared  with  the  standard 
of  an  inspired  Apostle,  I  think  that  it  has  been  sufficiently 
convicted  of  fundamental  departures  from  the  doctrines  of 
the  Gospel.  It  corrupts  the  Blood,  the  Water  and  the 
Spirit*  It  denies  the  doctrine  of  gratuitous  justification, 
makes  the  Redeemer  the  minister  of  human  righteousness, 
converts  His  death  into  the  basis  of  human  merit,  destroys' 
the  possibility  of  scriptural  holiness,  degrades  the  perfec- 
tion of  the  Divine  law,  exalts  the  church  into  the  throne 
of  God,  and  erects  a  vast  system^  of  hypocrisy  and  will- 
worship  upon  the  ruins  of  a  pure  and  spiritual  religion. 
Divine  grace  is  divested  of  its  efficacy,  and  the  Almighty  is 
reduced  to  the  pitiful  condition  of  an  ancient  German 
prince,  whose  sole  influence  consisted  in  the  authority  to 
persuade,  but  not  in  the  power  to  enforce.     Faith  is  dis- 


OF   THE   CHURCH   OF   ROME.  411 

lodged  from  its  legitimate  position,  perverted  in  its  nature 
and  corrupted  in  its  evidence,  while  the  sacraments,  clothed 
with  preternatural  power,  are  foisted  in  its  place.  Such  is 
the  creed  which,  to  the  astonishment  of  the  land,  Princeton 
has  pronounced  to  be  not  incompatible  with  a  scriptural 
hope  of  life.  I  have  never  said,  neither  do  I  now  assert, 
that  all  who  are  nominally  in  Kome  must  necessarily  be  of 
Rome — that  every  man,  woman  or  child  who  ostensibly  pro- 
fesses the  Papal  creed  must  be  liopelessly  doomed  to  perdi- 
tion. It  is  the  prerogative  of  God  alone  to  search  the 
heart,  and  He  may  detect  germs  of  grace  in  many  a  breast 
which  have  never  ripened  into  the  fruit  of  the  lips.  Jiut  I 
do  confidently  assert  that  no  man  who  truly  believes  and 
cordially  embraces  the  Papal  theory  of  salvation  can,  con- 
sistently with  the  Scriptures,  be  a  child  of  God.  If  his 
heart  is  impregnated  with  the  system,  it  is  impregnated  with 
the  seeds  of  death.  To  make  his  own  obedience,  and  not 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  the  immediate  ground  of  his 
reliance ;  to  look  to  the  power  of  the  human  will,  and  not  to 
the  potency  of  Divine  grace,  as  the  immediate  agent  in 
conversion ;  to  depend  upon  the  sacraments  and  not  upon 
faith  for  a  living  interest  in  the  benefits  of  redemption ;  to 
defer  implicitly  to  human  authority  and  reject  the  Spirit  ex- 
cept as  He  speaks  through  a  human  tribunal, — this  is  to  be  a 
Papist :  and  if  these  characteristics  can  comport  with  sincere 
discipleship  in  the  school  of  Jesus,  the  measures  of  truth 
are  confounded,  humility  and  pride  are  consistent,  and  gi-ace 
and  works  are  synonymous  expressions.  Even  Hooker,  the 
semi-apologist  for  Papists,  is  compelled  to  admit  that  though 
in  the  work  of  redemption  itself  they  do  not  join  other 
things  with  Christ,  yet  "  in  the  application  of  this  inesti- 
mable treasure,  that  it  may  be  effectual  to  their  salvation, 
how  demurely  soever  they  confess  that  they  seek  remission 
of  sins  not  other^vise  than  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  using 
humbly  the  means  appointed  by  Him  to  apply  the  benefits 
of  His  holy  blood,  they  teach  indeed  so  many  things  per- 
nicious to  the  Christian  faith,  in  setting  down  the  means 


412  THE    VALIDITY    OF    ROMISH    BAPTISM. 

whereof  they  speak,  that  tlie  very  foundation  of  faith  which 
they  hold  is  thereby  plainly  overthrown  on  the  force  of  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ  extinguished."  This  witness  is  true, 
and  if  true  the  baptism  of  Rome  is  nothing  worth.  It 
wants  the  form  of  the  Christian  ordinance,  which  derives 
its  sacramental  cliaracter  from  its  relation  to  the  covenant 
of  grace ;  it  is  essential  to  it  that  it  signifies  and  seals  the 
benefits  of  redemption.  Apart  from  the  Gospel  it  cannot 
exist.  The  institute  of  Rome  is  neither  a  sign  nor  a  seal, 
however  she  may  apply  these  epithets  to  it ;  and  even  if  it 
were,  as  she  has  introduced  another  Gospel  and  another 
scheme  of  salvation,  she  must  necessarily  have  introduced 
another  baptism.  The  one  baptism  of  Paul  is  insepar- 
ably connected  Avith  the  one  Lord  and  the  one  faith.  When 
the  truths  of  the  covenant  are  discarded,  its  signs  lose  their 
efficacy  and  its  seals  their  power. 

Note. — For  some  admirable  remarks  on  the  immoral  tendencies  of  the 
Komish  doctrines,  see  Taylor's  Dissuasive  from  Popery.  See  also  the 
preface  to  his  Ductor  Dubitantium  for  a  brief  account  of  Papal  Casuisti-y. 
If  I  can  do  so  without  offence,  I  would  also  refer  to  a  recent  work  on  the 
Apocrypha  for  some  arguments,  not  altogether  common,  upon  the  tend- 
encies of  Rome  to  skepticism,  immorality  and  superstition.  Some  use 
has  been  made  of  this  work  in  the  present  article. 


ROMANIST  ARGUMENTS  FOR  THE  APOC- 
RYPHA DISCUSSED, 


LETTER    I. 

PRELIMINARY  STATEMENTS— COUNCIL  OF  TRENT  AND  THE  CANON, 

SIR:  If  you  had  been  content  with  simply  writing  a 
review  of  my  article  on  the  Apocrypha,  without  alluding 
to  me  in  any  other  way  than  as  its  author,  I  should  not, 
perhaps,  have  troubled  you  with  any  notice  of  your  strict- 
ures. But  you  have  chosen  the  form  of  a  personal  address ; 
and  though  the  rules  of  courtesy  do  not  require  that  anony- 
mous letters  should  be  answered,  yet  I  find  that  your  epistles 
are  generally  regarded  as  a  challenge  to  discuss,  through 
the  public  press,  the  peculiar  and  distinctive  principles  of 
the  sect  to  which  you  belong.  Such  a  challenge  I  cannot 
decline.  Taught  in  the  school  of  that  illustrious  philosopher 
who  drew  the  first  constitution  of  this  State,  I  profess  to  be 
a  lover  of  truth,  and  especially  of  the  truth  of  God;  and 
as  I  am  satisfied  that  it  has  nothing  to  apprehend  from  the 
assaults  of  error  so  long  as  a  country  is  permitted  to  enjoy 
that  "capital  advantage  of  an  enlightened  people,  the  liberty 
of  discussing  every  subject  which  can  fall  within  the  com- 
pa.ss  of  the  human  mind  "  (a  liberty,  as  you  Avell  know, 
possessed  by  the  citizens  of  no  Papal  state),  I  cannot  bring 
myself  to  dread  the  results  of  a  controversy  conducted  even 
in  the  spirit  which  you  ascribe  to  me. 

If,  sir,  my  sensibilities  were  as  easily  wounded  as  your 

413 


414      ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.     [LETTER  I. 

own,  I  too  might  take  offence  at  the  asperity  of  temper 
which  you  have,  indeed,  attempted  to  conceal  by  a  veil  of 
affected  politeness,  but  which,  in  spite  of  your  caution,  has 
more  than  once  been  discovered  through  the  flimsy  disguise. 
But,  sir,  the  spirit  of  your  letter  is  a  matter  of  very  little 
consequence  to  me. 

If  the  moderation  and  courtesy  of  the  Papal  priesthood 
were  not  so  exclusively  confined  to  Protestant  countries, 
where  they  are  a  lean  and  beggarly  minority,  there  would 
be  less  reason  for  ascribing  their  politeness  to  the  dictates 
of  craft  instead  of  the  impulses  of  a  generous  mind.  It  is 
certainly  singular  that  Papists  among  us  should  make  such 
violent  pretensions  to  fastidiousness  of  taste,  when  the  style 
of  their  royal  masters — if  the  example  of  the  popes  is  of 
value — stands  pre-eminent  in  letters  for  coarseness,  vulgar- 
ity, ribaldry  and  abuse.  Dogs,  wolves,  foxes  and  adders, 
imprecations  of  wrath  and  the  most  horrible  anathemas, 
dance  through  their  bulls,  "  in  all  the  mazes  of  metaphor- 
ical confusion."  If  these  models  of  Papal  refinement  are 
not  observed  in  a  Protestant  state,  men  will  be  apt  to  reflect 
that  an  Order  exists  among  you  whose  secret  instructions 
have  reduced  fraud  to  a  system  and  lying  to  an  art.  How 
you,  sir,  without  "compunctious  visitings  of  conscience," 
could  magnify  breaches  of  "the  rules  of  courtesy"  on  the 
part  of  Protestants  toward  the  adherents  of  the  Papal  com- 
munion into  serious  evils  which  often  required  you  "to 
draw  on  your  patience,"  is  to  me  a  matter  of  profound 
astonishment.  Standing  as  you  do  among  the  children  of 
the  Huguenots,  whose  fathers  tested  the  liberality  of  Rome, 
and  signalized  their  own  heroic  fortitude  at  the  stake,  the 
gibbet  and  the  wheel,  were  you  not  ashamed  to  complain 
of  "trifles  light  as  air,"  mere  "paper  bullets  of  the  brain," 
while  the  blood  of  a  thousand  martyrs  was  crying  to  heaven 
against  you?  Two  centuries  have  not  yet  elapsed  since  the 
exiles  of  Languedoc  found  an  asylum  in  this  State.  Who 
could  have  dreamed  that  in  so  short  a  time  the  members 
of  a  community  which  had  pursued  them  with  unrelenting 


Letter  I.]  PRELIMIXARY   STATEMENTS.  415 

fury  at  home  should  have  been  found  among  their  descend- 
ants, whining  piteously  about  charity  and  politeness? 
They  who,  in  every  country  where  their  pretended  spiritual 
dominion  has  been  supported  by  the  props  of  secular  author- 
ity, have  robbed,  murdered  and  plundered  all  who  have 
been  guilty  of  the  only  crimes  which  Rome  cannot  tolerate 
— freedom  of  thought  and  obedience  to  God — are  horribly 
persecuted  if  they  are  not  treated  with  the  smooth  hypocrisy 
of  courtly  address!  Did  you  feel  constrained,  sir,  in  the 
city  of  Charleston,  where  the  recollection  of  the  past  can- 
not have  perished,  where  the  touching  story  of  Judith 
Manigault  must  always  be  remembered,  to  make  the  formal 
declaration  that  "  Catholics  [meaning  Papists]  are  not  de- 
void of  feeling  ?"  Were  you  afraid  that  the  delight  which 
you  formerly  took  in  sundering  the  tenderest  ties  of  nature, 
tearing  children  from  their  parents  and  husbands  from 
their  wives,  and  above  all  your  keen  relish  for  Protestant 
blood,  coupled  with  the  notorious  fact  that  you  have  re- 
nounced your  reason  and  surrendered  the  exercise  of  private 
judgment,  might  otherwise  have  created  a  shrewd  suspicion 
that  you  possessed  the  nobler  elements  of  humanity  in  no 
marked  proportions  ?  But  I  am  glad  to  learn  that  you  are 
neither  "  outcasts  from  society  nor  devoid  of  feeling  ;"  and 
I  shall  endeavour  to  treat  you  jn  the  course  of  this  contro- 
versy as  men  that  have  "  discourse  of  reason,"  though  I 
plainly  foresee  that  your  punctilious  regard  to  "  the  rules 
of  courtesy  "  will  lead  you  to  condemn  my  severity  of  spirit. 
It  is  a  precious  truth  that  my  judgment  is  not  with  man. 
To  employ  soft  and  honeyed  phrases  in  discussing  questions 
of  everlasting  importance ;  to  deal  with  errors  that  strike 
at  the  foundation  of  all  human  hope  as  if  they  Avere  harm- 
less and  venial  mistakes;  to  bless  where  God  curses  and  to 
make  apologies  where  God  requires  us  to  hate, — though  it  may 
be  the  aptest  method  of  securing  popular  aiiplause  in  a  so- 
phistical age,  is  cruelty  to  man  and  treachery  to  Heaven. 
Those  who,  on  such  subjects,  attach  more  importance  to  the 
"  rules  of  courtesy "   than   the   measures  of  truth,  do   not 


416      ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.     [Letter  I. 

defend  the  citadel,  but  betray  it  into  the  hands  of  its  enemies. 
Judas  kissed  his  Master,  but  it  was  only  to  mark  him  out 
for  destruction;  the  Roman  soldiers  saluted  Jesus,  Hail, 
King  of  the  Jews !  but  it  was  in  grim  and  insulting 
mockery.  Charity  for  the  persons  of  men,  however,  corrupt 
or  desperately  wicked,  is  a  Christian  virtue.  I  have  yet  to 
learn  that  opinions  and  doctrines  fall  within  its  province. 
On  the  contrary,  I  apprehend  that  our  love  to  the  souls  of 
men  will  be  the  exact  measure  of  our  zeal  in  exposing  the 
dangers  in  which  they  are  ensnared.^  It  is  only  among 
those  who  hardly  admit  the  existence  of  such  a  thing  as 
truth,  who  look  upon  all  doctrines  as  equally  involved  in 
uncertainty  and  doubt — among  skeptics,  sophists  and  calcu- 
lators— that  a  generous  zeal  is  likely  to  be  denounced  as 
bigotry,  a  holy  fervency  of  style  mistaken  for  the  inspira- 
tion of  malice,  and  the  dreary  indiiference  of  Pyrrhonism 
confounded  with  true  liberality.  Such  men  would  have 
condemned  Paul  for  his  withering  rebuke  to  Elyjuas  the 
sorcerer,  and  Jesus  Christ  for  his  stern  denunciations  of 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  Surely  if  there  be  any  subject 
which  requires  pungency  of  language  and  severity  of  re- 
buke, it  is  the  "  uncasing  of  a  grand  imposture ;"  if  there 
be  any  proper  object  of  indignation  and  scorn,  "  it  is  a  false 
prophet  taken  in  the  greatest,  dearest  and  most  dangerous 
cheat — the  cheat  of  souls." 

1  "We  all  know,"  says  Milton,  in  a  passage  which  I  shall  partially 
quote,  "that  in  private  or  personal  injuries,  yea,  in  public  sutlerings  for 
the  cause  of  Christ,  His  rule  and  example  teaches  us  to  be  so  far  from  a 
readiness  to  speak  evil  as  not  to  answer  the  reviler  in  his  language, 
though  never  so  much  provoked ;  yet  in  the  detecting  and  convincing  of 
any  notorious  enemy  to  truth  and  his  country's  peace,  I  suppose,  and  more 
than  suppose,  it  will  be  nothing  disagreeing  from  Christian  meekness  to 
handle  such  an  one  in  a  rougher  accent,  and  to  send  home  his  haughtiness 
well  bespurted  with  his  own  holy  water.  Nor  to  do  this  are  we  unauthor- 
ized either  from  the  moral  precept  of  Solomon,  to  answer  him  thereafter 
that  prides  himself  in  his  folly ;  nor  from  the  example  of  Christ  and  all 
His  followers  in  all  ages,  who,  in  the  refuting  of  those  that  resisted  sound 
doctrine  and  by  subtle  dissimulations  corrupted  the  minds  of  men,  have 
wrought  up  their  zealous  souls  into  such  vehemencies  as  nothing  could  be 
more  killingly  spoken." — Animadvemions  upon  the  Remonst.  Def.  Pre/, 


Letter  I.]  PRELIMINARY   STATEMENTS.  417 

If  I  know  my  own  heart,  I  am  so  far  from  entertaining 
vindictive  feelings  to  the  persons  of  Papists  that  I  sincerely 
deplore  their  blindness,  and  would  as  cheerfully  accord  to 
them  as  any  other  citizens  who  have  no  special  claims  upon 
me  the  hospitalities  of  life.  It  is  only  in  the  solemn  matters 
of  religion  that  an  impassable  gulf  is  betwixt  us.  You 
apply,  it  is  true,  to  the  Papal  community  throughout  your 
letters  (I  have  three  of  them  now  before  me)  the  title  of 
the  Catholic  Church ;  and  perhaps  one  ground  of  the  offence 
that  I  have  given  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  I  have  not 
acknowledged  even  indirectly  your  arrogant  pretensions. 
Sir,  I  cannot  do  it  until  I  am  prepared  with  you  to  make 
the  Word  of  God  of  none  effect  by  vain  and  impious  tradi- 
tions, and  to  belie  the  records  of  authentic  history.  I  say 
it  in  deep  solemnity  and  with  profound  conviction,  that  so 
far  are  you  from  being  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  that  your 
right  to  be  regarded  as  a  Church  of  God  at  all,  in  any  just 
scriptural  sense,  is  exceedingly  questionable.  A  community 
which  buries  the  truth  of  God  under  a  colossal  pile  of  lying 
legends,  and  makes  the  preaching  of  Christ's  pure  Gospel  a 
damnable  sin;  which  annuls  the  signs  in  the  holy  sacra- 
ments, and  by  a  mystic  power  of  sacerdotal  enchantment 
pretends  to  bestow  the  invisible  grace ;  which,  instead  of  the 
ministry  of  reconciliation,  whose  business  it  is  to  preach  the 
Word,  cheats  the  nations  with  a  Pagan  priesthood,  whose 
function  it  is  to  offer  up  sacrifice  for  the  living  and  the 
dead ;  which,  instead  of  the  pure,  simple  and  spiritual  wor- 
ship that  constitutes  the  glory  of  the  Christian  Church, 
dazzles  the  eyes  with  the  gorgeous  solemnities  of  Pagan 
superstition ;  a  community  like  this — and  such  is  the  Church 
of  Rome — can  be  regarded  in  no  other  light  than  as  "a 
detestable  system  of  impiety,  cruelty  and  imposture,  fabri- 
cated by  the  father  of  lies."  Like  the  "  huge  and  mon- 
strous Wen,"  of  which  ancient  story'  tells  us,  that  claimed 
a  seat  in  the  council  of  the  body  next  to  the  head  itself,  the 
constitution  of  the  Papacy  is  an  enormous  excrescence  which 
1  See  the  story  told  in  Milton,  Reformation  in  Eng.,  Book  ii. 
Vol.  III.— 27 


418     ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.     [Lettf.h  I. 

has  grown  from  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  which,  when 
opened  and  dissected  by  the  implements  of  Divine  truth,  is 
found  to  be  but  a  "  heap  of  hard  and  loathsome  uncleanness, 
a  foul  disfigurement  and  burden."  The  Christian  world 
was  justly  indignant  with  the  fraternal  address  which  Eng- 
lish Socinians  submitted  "  to  the  ambassador  of  the  mighty 
emperor  of  Fez  and  Morocco"  at  the  court  of  Charles  the 
Second.^  But  their  own  spurious  charity  to  Papists  is  a  no 
less  treacherous  betrayal  of  the  cause  of  truth.  What 
claims  have  Eoman  Catholics  to  be  regarded  as  Christians 
which  may  not  be  pleaded  with  equal  propriety  in  behalf 
of  the  Mohammedans  ?  Is  it  that  Rome  professes  to  receive 
the  Word  of  God  as  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  ?  The  false  Prophet  of  Arabia  makes 
the  same  pretension.  Assisted  in  the  composition  of  the 
Koran  by  an  apostate  Jew  and  a  renegade  Christian,  he  has 
given  a  lodgment  to  almost  every  heresy  which  had  infected 
the  Church  of  Christ  in  this  rude  and  chaotic  mass  of  fraud 
and  imposture.  Professing  to  receive  the  Bible,  he  makes 
it  of  none  effect  by  his  additions  to  its  teaching.  The  real 
creed  of  Mohammedans  has  no  countenance  from  Scripture. 
It  is  on  the  ground  that  Mohammed  makes  void  the  Word 
of  God  by  his  pretended  revelations  that  he  is  treated  by 
the  Christian  world  as  a  blasphemer  and  impostor.  Has 
not  Rome  equally  silenced  the  Oracles  of  God  in  the  din  and 
clatter  of  a  thousand  wicked  traditions  ?  Her  real  creed, 
that  which  gives  form  and  body  to  the  system,  that  which  is 
proposed  alike  as  the  rule  of  the  living  and  the  hope  of  the 
dying,  is  not  only  not  to  be  found  in  the  Bible,  but  contra- 
dicts every  distinctive  principle  of  the  glorious  Gospel  of 
God's  grace.  If  Mohammedans  justify  the  heterogeneous 
additions  of  their  Prophet  to  the  acknowledged  revelation 
of  Heaven  by  pretending  that  the  Bible  is  imperfect,  and 
consequently  inadequate  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  how 
much  better  is  the  conduct  of  Rome  in  reference  to  the  same 

1  See  Leslie's  Socinian  Controversy.    For  the  authenticity  of  this  address, 
see  Horslev's  Tracts  in  controversy  with  Dr.  Priestley. 


Letter  I.]  PRELIMINARY   STATEMENTS.  419 

matter?  She  may  not  assume  Avitli  Mohammed  that  the 
Scriptures  have  been  corrupted,  but  she  does  assume  that 
the  Scriptures  are  not  what  God  declares  that  they  are — able 
not  only  to  make  us  wise  unto  salvation,  but  to  make  "  the 
man  of  God  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  every  good 
work."^  Again,  Rome's  bulwark  is  tradition.  Moham- 
med, however,  far  outstrips  her  in  this  matter,  and  appeals 
to  a  tradition  preserved  by  the  descendants  of  Ishmael  that 
reaches  back  to  the  time  of  Abraham. 

So,  also,  in  the  article  of  infallibility  and  authoritative 
teaching,  the  Arabian  impostor  and  the  Roman  harlot  stand  on 
similar  ground.  The  doctrines  of  the  Koran  are  announced 
with  no  other  evidence  than  the  dorb^  i(pyj  of  the  master, 
and  the  Edicts  of  Trent  claim  to  bind  the  world  because 
they  are  the  Edicts  of  Trent.  In  one  respect  the  religion 
of  Mohammed  is  purer  than  that  of  Rome ;  it  is  free  from 
idolatry.  There  is  in  it  no  approximation  to  what  Gibbon 
calls  the  "  elegant  mythology  of  Greece." 

Mohammedanism  and  Popery  are  in  truth  successive  evo- 
lutions in  a  great  and  comprehensive  plan  of  darkness,  con- 
ceived by  a  master  mind  for  the  purjjose  of  destroying  the 
kingdom  of  light  and  perpetuating  the  reign  of  death. 
For  centuries  of  ignorance  and  guilt  the  god  of  this  world 
possessed  a  consolidated  empire  in  the  unbroken  dominion, 
among  all  the  nations  but  one,  of  Pagan  idolatry.  This  was 
the  grand  enemy  of  Christ  in  the  apostolic  age.  When  this 
fabric,  however,  in  the  provinces  of  ancient  Rome,  tottered 
to  its  fall,  with  his  characteristic  subtlety  and  fraud  the 
Great  Deceiver,  according  to  the  predictions  of  Prophets 
and  Apostles,  began  another  structure  in  the  corruption  of 
the  Gospel  itself,  which  should  be  equally  imposing  and 
more  fatal,  because  it  pretended  a  reverence  for  truth. 
Under  the  plausible  and  sanctimonious  pretexts  of  superior 
piety  and  extraordinary  zeal  the  simple  institutions  of  the 
Gospel  were  gradually  undermined;  errors,  one  by  one, 
were  imperceptibly  introduced ;  the  circle  of  darkness  con- 
1  2  Tim.  iii.  17. 


420     ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.     [LETTER  I, 

tinned  daily  to  extend,  until  in  an  age  of  profound  slum- 
ber, through  the  deep  machinations  of  the  wicked  One,  the 
foundations  of  the  Papacy  were  securely  laid.  The  temple 
of  the  Western  Antichrist,  erected  on  the  ruins  of  Chris- 
tianity in  the  bounds  of  the  Roman  See,  and  requiring  as  it 
did  the  corruptions  of  ages  to  prepare,  cement  and  consoli- 
date its  parts,  owes  its  compactness  of  form  and  harmonious 
proportions  to  the  profound  policy  and  consummate  skill  of 
the  Enemy  of  souls.  As  left  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  the 
Papal  Church  stands  completely  accoutred  in  the  panoply 
of  darkness — the  grand  instrument  of  Satan  in  the  West  as 
]\Iohammedanism  in  the  East — to  oppose  the  kingdom  of 
God.^  The  lights  are  now  extinguished  on  the  altar ;  those 
in  her,  but  not  of  her,  who  have  any  lingering  reverence 
for  God,  are  required  to  abandon  her ;  her  gorgeous  forms 
and  imposing  ceremonies  are  only  the  funeral  rites  of  relig- 
ion ;  the  life,  spirit  and  glory  have  departed.  Entertaining 
as  I  do  these  convictions  in  regard  to  the  Papal  community, 
I  shall  not  pretend  to  sentiments  which  as  a  man  I  ought 
not  to  cherish,  and  as  a  Christian  I  dare  not  tolerate. 
Peace  with  Rome  is  rebellion  against  God.  My  love  to 
Him,  to  His  Church,  His  truth  and  the  eternal  interests 
of  men  will  for  ever  prevent  me — even  indirectly  by  a 
mawkish  liberality  which  can  exist  only  in  words — from 
bidding  God-speed  to  this  Babylonish  merchant  of  souls. 
But  I  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  that  my  most 
unsparing  denunciations  of  doctrines  and  practices  w^iich 
seem  to  me  to  lead  directly  to  the  gates  of  death  are  not  to 
be  construed  into  a  personal  abuse  of  the  Papists  them- 
selves. Little  as  they  believe  it,  I  would  gladly  save  them 
from  the  awful  doom  of  an  apostate  church. 

With  these  general  explanations  of  the  spirit  by  which  I 
am  and  shall  continue  to  be  actuated,  I  shall  pass  on  to 
make  a  few  remarks  in  vindication  of  the  expressions  at 
which  you  have  taken  offence  as  indicating  ill  feelings  on 

1  The  doctrine  of  the  immacuhite  conception  of  the  Virgin  is  supposed 
to  be  derived  from  the  Koran.     See  Gibbon,  vol.  ix.,  chap.  1.,  pp.  2C5,  266. 


Letter  I.]  PEETJMIXArvY   STATEMENTS.  421 

my  part,  and  "with  which  even  in  quotation  you  are 
unwilling  to  sully  your  pen."  These  expressions,  you  will 
excuse  me  for  saying,  are  perfectly  proper. 

Protestants  designate  their  own  churches  by  terms  descrip- 
tive of  their  peculiar  forms  of  government  or  the  distinctive 
doctrines  they  profess.  Some  are  called  Presbyterians  and 
some  Prelatists,  some  Calvinists  and  others  Arminians.  You 
acknowledge  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope ;  this  is  a  distinctive 
feature  of  your  system.  Where,  then,  is  the  ground  of 
offence  in  applying  to  you  a  term,  or,  as  you  choose  to  call 
it,  a  "  vulgar  epithet,"  which  exactly  describes  a  character- 
istic principle  of  your  sect  ? 

Then  again,  as  to  the  phrases  "vassals  of  Rome"  and 
"  captives  to  the  car  of  Rome,"  they  are  really  the  least 
offensive  terms  in  which  your  relations  to  the  Papal  See,  as 
set  forth  in  standard  writers  of  your  own  Church,  can  be  ex- 
pressed. You  must  be  aware,  sir,  or  you  would  hardly  ven- 
ture to  assume  with  so  much  confidence  the  air  of  a  scholar, 
that  the  word  vassal  was  employed  by  our  earlier  writers  as 
equivalent  to  a  man  of  valour,  and  was  flir  from  conveying  a 
reproachful  meaning.  "The  word,"  says  Richardson,  "is 
indeed  evidently  as  much  a  term  of  honour  as  knighthood 
was."  It  is  certainly  a  softer  term  than  slave,  which,  ac- 
cording to  Cicero's  definition  of  servitude — obedientla  fnicti 
aniini  et  abjedi  et  arbitrio  carentis  suo^ — seems  to  be  more 
exactly  adapted  to  describe  your  state.  Captivity  to  Christ 
is  the  glory  of  a  Christian ;  and  as  the  voice  of  Rome  is  to 
you  the  word  of  the  Lord,  I  do  not  see  why  you  should 
object  to  being  called  "captives  to  the  car  of  Rome."  I 
am  afraid,  sir,  that  the  real  harm  of  these  words  is  not  to 
be  found  in  their  vulgarity  and  coarseness,  but  in  the  un- 
palatable truth  which  they  contain.  If  there  were  no  sore 
there  would  be  no  shrinking  beneath  the  probe.  As  to  my 
"  mocking  language  concerning  the  awful  mystery  of  tran- 
substantiation,"  I  am  not  yet  persuaded  that  there  is  any 
other  mystery  in  this  huge  absurdity  but  "  the  mystery  of 
1  Cicero,  Paradoxon,  V.  i. 


422     ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.     [Letter  I. 

iniquity."  To  you,  sir,  it  may  be  mvful;  so  no  doubt  were 
calves  and  apes  to  their  Egyptian  worshippers. 

I.  Your  letters  contain,  or  profess  to  contain,  an  explana- 
tion of  what  the  Council  of  Trent  actually  did  in  regard  to 
the  Canon  of  Scripture,  a  vindication  of  its  conduct,  and  a 
laboured  reply  to  my  short  arguments  against  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Apocrypha.  In  other  words,  they  naturally 
divide  themselves  into  three  parts :  a  statement,  the  proof, 
and  refutation.     Of  each,  now,  in  its  order. 

In  your  statement  of  what  the  Council  did,  you  have 
given  us  a  definition  of  the  word  Ccmon  which,  since  the 
term  is  not — as  you  seem  to  imply — univocal,  adequately 
represents  neither  ancient  nor  modern  usage.  As  I  shall 
have  occasion  in  another  part  of  this  discussion  to  revert  to 
this  subject  again,  it  will  be  sufficient  for  my  present  pur- 
pose to  observe  that,  in  the  modern  acceptation  of  the  term, 
the  Scriptures  are  not  called  canonical  because  they  are 
found  in  any  given  catalogue,  but  because  they  are  authorita- 
tive as  a  rule  of  faith.  The  common  metaphorical  meaning 
of  the  Greek  word  xaucov  is  a  rule  or  measure.  In  this  sense 
it  is  used  by  the  classical  wTiters  of  antiquity,^  as  well  as  by 
the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.^  Whether  found  in  a 
catalogue  or  not,  if  the  inspiration  of  a  book  can  be  ade- 
([uately  determined,  it  possesses  at  once  canonical  authority. 
It  becomes,  as  far  as  it  goes,  a  standard  of  faith.  And  with 
all  due  deference,  sir,  to  your  superior  facilities  for  under- 
standing aright  the  decisions  of  your  Church,  you  will  per- 
mit me  to  declare  that  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  you  so 
much  venerate,  in  pronouncing  the  Apocrypha  canonical^ 
either  employed  the  term  in  the  sense  wdiich  I  have  indi- 
cated, and  made  these  books  an  authoritative  rule  of  faith, 
or  was  guilty  of  a  degree  of  folly  which,  w4th  all  my  con- 
tempt for  the  character  of  its  members,  I  am  unwilling  to 
impute  to  them.  You  inform  us,  sir,  that  a  book  is  to  be 
regarded  as  sacred  because  it  is  inspired,  but  that  no  book, 

1  Aristotle,  Polit.,  lib.  ii.,  caji.  8;  Eurip.,  Hec,  602. 
2Gal.  vi.  16:  Phil.  iii.  16. 


Letter  I.]  COUNCIL   OF   TEENT   AND   THE   CANON.        423 

whatever  its  origin,  is  to  be  received  as  canonical  until  it  is 
inserted  in  some  existing  catalogue.  With  this  key  to  the 
interpretation  of  its  language,  the  Council  of  Trent  ^  has 
pronounced  its  anathema  not  only  on  the  man  who  refuses 
to  receive  these  books  as  inspired,  but  also  on  him  who  does 
not  believe  that  they  are  found  in  a  catalogue.  He  is  as 
much  bound,  on  pain  of  what  you  interpret  to  be  excommu- 
nication, to  believe  in  the  existence  of  a  list  of  inspired 
books  as  he  is  to  believe  in  the  Divine  authority  of  the 
books  themselves.  It  is  not  enough  for  him  to  know  that 
the  various  documents  which  compose  the  Bible  were  written 
by  men  whose  minds  were  guided  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  he 
must  also  know  that  a  body  of  men  in  some  quarter  of  the 
world  has  actually  inserted  the  names  of  these  books  in  a 
catalogue  or  list.     "  Risum  teneatis,  amici  f 

Now — to  borrow  an  illustration  from  your  favourite 
quarter — suppose  one  of  our  slaves  should  be  converted  to 
Popery,  that  is,  should  receive  as  true  all  the  dogmas  that 
the  priests  inculcate,  and  yet  be  ignorant  that  such  a  learned 
body  as  the  Council  of  Trent  had  ever  been  convened,  or, 
what  is  no  uncommon  thing  among  you,  be  profoundly  igno- 
rant that  such  a  book  as  the  Bible  exists  at  all,  would  he  be 
damned?  To  say  nothing  of  his  not  receiving  the  Scrip- 
tures under  such  circumstances  as  sacred,  he  most  assuredly 
does  not  receive  them  as  canonical  in  your  sense.  He  knows 
nothing  of  a  list  or  catalogue  in  which  these  books  are 
enumerated.  It  is  an  idle  equivocation  to  say  that  the  curse 
has  reference  only  to  those  who  know  the  existence  of  the 
catalogue.  In  that  case  the  sin  which  is  condemned  is  evi- 
dently a  sheer  impossibility  except  to  a  man  who  is  stark 
mad.  To  know  that  a  catalogue  is  composed  of  certain 
books,  and  this  is  the  only  way  of  knowing  it  is  a  catalogue, 

^  "  Now  if  any  one  does  not  receive  as  sacred  and  canonical  those  books 
entire,  with  all  their  parts,  as  they  have  been  usually  read  in  the  Catholic 
Church,  and  are  found  in  the  old  Latin  Vulgate  edition,  and  shall  know- 
ingly and  industriously  contemn  the  aforesaid  traditions,  let  him  be  ana- 
thema."— Letter  I. 


424     ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.     [Letter  I. 

and  yet  7iot  to  believe  that  the  books  are  in  it,  is  a  mental 
contradiction  which  can  only  be  received  by  those  whose 
understandings  can  digest  the  mystery  of  transubstantiatiou. 

According  to  your  statement,  the  venerable  Fathers  as- 
sembled at  Trent  did  three  things:  1.  They  decided  what 
books  were  inspired ;  2.  They  arranged  them  in  a  list ;  and, 
3.  They  excommunicated  all  those  heretics  who  would  not 
receive  both  books  and  list.  In  my  humble  opinion,  how- 
ever, the  holy  Fathers  declared  what  books  they  received 
as  sacred  and  authoritative  in  matters  of  faith,  and  pro- 
nounced their  curse  upon  those  who  did  not  acknowledge 
the  same  rule  with  themselves.  I  shall  quote  from  the  de- 
cree itself,  in  your  own  translation,  a  sentence  which  shows 
that  your  sense  of  the  term  canonical  was  foreign  from  their 
thoughts :  "  It  has,  moreover,  thought  proper  to  annex  to 
this  decree  a  catalogue  of  the  sacred  books,  lest  any  doubt 
might  arise  which  are  the  books  received  by  this  Council." 
You  will  find,  on  recurring  to  the  original,  that  the  word 
which  you  have  rendered  catalogue  is  not  canona,  but  indi- 
cem.  Again,  sir,  as  the  Fathers  are  said  to  receive  these 
books  before  their  own  list  is  made,  how  did  they  do 
it  ?  Evidently  in  the  same  way — unless  there  be  one  sort 
of  faith  for  the  people  and  another  for  divines — in  which 
they  required  others  to  receive  them,  that  is,  as  saered  and 
canonical.  But  the  preceding  part  of  the  decree  contains 
not  a  word  about  the  existence  of  former  catalogues,  though 
it  is  particular  to  insert  the  inspiration  of  these  books  as 
well  as  of  tradition  as  the  ground  of  their  reception,  main- 
taining, at  the  same  time,  that  they  were,  if  not  the  rule,  at 
least  what  is  equivalent  to  it,  the  source  {fontem),  of  every 
saving  truth  and  of  moral  discipline.  Hence,  in  the  sense 
of  Trent,  to  be  sacred  and  canonical  "  is  to  be  inspired  as  a 
rule  of  faith." 

After  this  specimen  of  definition  we  are  not  to  be  astonished 
at  still  more  marvellous  achievements  in  the  way  of  trans- 
lation. The  words,  clear  and  explicit  in  themselves,  "pan 
pietatis  affectu  ac  reverentia  suscipit  et  vena'atur,"  I  find  are 


Letter  I.]       COUNCIL   OF   TRENT   AND   THE   CANON.  425 

rendered  by  you  into  English,  hardly  less  equivocal  than 
the  language  of  an  ancient  oracle.^  Sir,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
obvious  meaning  of  the  words,  you  might  have  learned  from 
your  own  Jesuit  historian  Pollavicuio^  that  it  was  the  intention 
of  the  Fathers  in  this  famous  decree  to  place  the  Apocrypha 
and  unwritten  traditions  upon  a  footing  of  equal  authority 
wdth  the  book  which  the  Lutherans  acknowledged  as  inspired. 
Their  object  was  to  give  their  Canon  or  rule  of  faith.  Deter- 
mined as  the  Pope  and  his  legates  were  to  suppress  the  Refor- 
mation, which  had  then  been  successfully  begun,  and  to  per- 
petuate the  atrocious  abuses  of  the  Roman  court,  they  com- 
menced the  work  of  death  by  poisoning  the  waters  of  life 
at  the  fountain.  In  the  sentence  immediately  succeeding  the 
anathema,  we  are  given  to  understand  that  the  preliminary 
measures  in  reference  to  faith  were  designed  to  indicate  the 
manner  in  which  the  subsequent  proceedings  of  the  Council 
touching  questions  of  doctrine  and  order  should  be  conducted. 

1  "  Keceives  with  d^ie  piety  and  reverence,  and  venerates."  The  same 
blunder  is  found  in  the  translation  of  this  decree  prefixed  to  the  Douay 
version  of  the  Scriptures. 

^ "  Deinde  quo  res  per  futuram  Sessionem  statuendse  discuterentur, 
idem  Legatus  exposuit :  Optimum  sibi  facta  videri,  ut  primo  loco  recen- 
serentur  ac  reciperentur  libri  Canonici  sacrarum  Literarum,  quo  certo  con- 
staret,  quibus  armis  esset  in  hcereticos  dimicandum,  et  in  qua  basi  fundanda 
esset  Fides  Catholicorum ;  quorum  aliqui  super  ea  re  misere  angebantur, 
cum  cernerent  in  eodem  libro  a  plurimiss  Spiritus  digitum  adorari,  alios 
contra  digitum  impostoris  execrari.  Hoc  statuto  tria  in  peculiaribus 
coetibus  proposita  sunt.  Primum,  an  omnia  utriusque  testamenti  volumina 
essent  comprobanda.  Alteram,  an  ea  comprobatio  per  novum  exaraen 
peragenda:  tertium  a  Bertano  ac  Seripando  propositum,  an  expediret 
sacros  libros  in  duas  classes  partiri :  alteram  eorum  quae  ad  promovendam 
populi  pietatem  pertinent,  et  illius  ergo  solum  ab  Ecclesia  recepti  tam- 
quam  boni,  cujusmodi  videbantur  esse  Proverbiorum  et  Sapientise  libri, 
nondum  ab  Ecclesia  probati  tamquara  Canonici,  tametsi  frequens  eorum 
mentio  haberetur  apud  sanctum  Hieronymum  et  Augustinuni,  aliosque 
veteres  auctores :  alteram  eorum,  quibus  etiam  fidei  dogmata  innituntur. 
Sed  ea  divisio,  tametsi  ab  aliquo  auctore  prius  facta,  et  tunc  a  Seripando 
promota  per  libellum  eruditissimum  ea  gratia  conscriptum,  quo  cuncti 
libri  Canonici  rite  expenderentur,  uti  revera  firmara  rationem  non  prsefe- 
rebat,  ita  nee  sua  specie  Patres  allexit,  vix  nacta  laudatorem  :  quare  nihil 
ultra  de  ilia  disputabinius." — Pullavicino,  Hist.  Cone.  Trident.,  lib.  vi., 
cap.  xi. 


426     ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.     [Letter  I. 

They  settled  the  proofs  and  authorities  to  which  in  all  their 
future  deliberations  they  intended  to  appeal.  As  Luther  was 
to  be  crushed,  and  as  the  armory  of  God's  Word  furnished  no 
weapons  with  which  this  incorrigible  heretic  could  be  con- 
victed of  error,  a  stronger  bulwark  must  needs  be  raised  to 
protect  the  abuses  and  cover  the  corruptions  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  You  cannot  be  ignorant,  sir,  that  much  difficulty  was 
felt  by  the  Council  in  settling  the  list  of  canonical  books.^ 
It  was  not  prepared  at  once  to  outrage  truth  and  history  by 
making  that  Divine  which  the  Church  of  God  had  never  re- 
ceived as  the  w^ork  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But,  sir,  without  the 
Apocrypha  and  unwritten  tradition,  the  holy  Fathers  were 
unable  to  construct  an  embankment  sufficient  to  roll  back  the 
cleansing  tide  of  life  which  Luther  was  endeavouring  to  pour 
into  the  Augean  stable  of  Papal  impurity  and  filth.  The 
awful  plunge  was  consequently  taken,  and  these  spurious 
books  and  lying  legends  were  made  standards  of  faith  of 
equal  authority  with  God's  holy  Word.  Inspired  Scripture, 
apocryphal  productions  and  unwritten  traditions  were  not 
only  received  with  due  piety  and  reverence,  as  you  would  have 
us  to  believe,  but  were  received  with  equal  piety  and  vene- 
ration, as  the  decree  itself  asserts.  This,  sir,  is  what  Trent 
did,  and,  until  it  can  be  shown  that  all  these  elements  of 

^  "  Some  thought  fit  to  establish  three  ranks.  The  first,  of  those  ivhich 
have  been  always  held  as  Divine ;  the  second,  of  those  whereof  sometimes 
doubt  hath  been  made,  but  by  use  have  obtained  canonical  authority,  in 
which  number  are  the  six  Epistles,  and  the  Apocalypse  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  some  small  parts  of  the  Evangelists;  the  third,  of  those 
whereof  there  hath  never  been  any  assurance  ;  as  are  the  seven  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  some  chapters  of  Daniel  and  Esther.  Some  thought  it 
better  to  make  no  distinction  at  all,  but  to  imitate  the  Council  of  Carthage 
and  others,  making  the  catalogue,  and  saying  no  more.  Another  opinion 
was  that  all  of  them  should  be  declared  to  be  in  all  parts,  as  they  are  in 
the  Latin  Bible,  of  Divine  and  equal  authority.  The  book  of  Baruc 
troubled  them  most,  which  is  not  put  in  the  number,  neither  by  the  Lao- 
diceans,  nor  by  those  of  Carthage,  nor  by  the  Pope,  and  therefore  sliould 
be  left  out,  as  well  for  this  reason,  as  because  the  beginning  of  it  cannot 
be  found.  But  because  it  was  read  in  the  Church,  the  Congregation,  es- 
teeming this  a  potent  reason,  resolved  that  it  was,  by  the  ancients,  accounted 
a  part  of  Jeremy  and  comj)rised  with  him." — Father  Paul,  p.  1-14. 


Letter  I.]       COUNCIL   OF   TEEXT   AND   THE   CANON.  427 

Papal  faith  are  really  entitled  to  the  same  degree  of  author- 
ity and  esteem — that  they  are  all,  in  other  words,  equally 
inspired — ray  charge  of  intolerable  arrogance  remains  un- 
answered against  the  Church  of  Rome.  I  said,  and  repeat 
the  accusation,  that  she  made  that  Divine  which  is  noto- 
riously human,  and  that  inspired  which,  in  the  sense  of 
the  Apostle,  is  notoriously  of  "  private  interpretation."  I 
did  not  impeach  the  Council  for  having  presumed  to  draw 
up  a  catalogue  of  sacred  and  canonical  books;  but  I  did 
impeach  it,  and  do  still  impeach  it,  of  one  of  the  most  awful 
crimes  which  a  mortal  can  commit,  in  having  solemnly  de- 
clared "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  when  the  Lord  had  neither 
spoken  nor  sent  them.  The  insulted  nations,  heartsick 
with  abuses,  were  looking,  with  the  anxiety  of  a  dying  man, 
for  the  sovereign  remedy  which  it  was  confidently  hoped 
would  be  prepared  and  administered  by  this  long-looked- 
for  assembly  of  spiritual  physicians ;  but  when  the  day  of 
their  redemption,  as  they  fondly  dreamed,  had  at  length 
arrived,  and  the  cup  of  blessing  was  put  to  their  lips,  be- 
hold, instead  of  the  promised  cure,  a  deadly  mixture  of 
hemlock  and  nightshade  !  Five  crafty  cardinals  and  a  few 
dozen  prelates  from  Spain  and  Italy,  called  together  by  the 
authority  of  the  Pope,  and  acting  in  slavish  subjection  to 
his  sovereign  will  (as  if  the  measure  of  their  iniquity  was 
now  full,  and  the  hour  of  their  final  and  complete  infatua- 
tion had  at  length  arrived),  proceeded,  with  the  daring 
desperation  of  men  bereft  of  shame  and  abandoned  of  God, 
to  collect  the  accumulated  errors  of  ages  into  one  enormous 
pile,  and  to  send  forth,  as  if  from  the  "  boiling  alembic  of 
hell,"  the  blackening  vapours  of  death  to  obscure  the  dawn- 
ing light,  to  cover  the  earth  with  darkness  and  involve  the 
people  in  despair.  Where  were  truth  and  decency,  sir, 
when  this  miserable  cabal '  of  scrambling  politicians  claimed 
^  When  we  call  to  mind  the  arts  and  subterfuges  by  whicli  the  Court 
of  Rome  endeavoured  to  evade  the  necessity  of  calling  a  Council ;  its 
long  delays,  while  groaning  Europe  was  clamouring  for  reform  ;  its  wily 
manoeuvres,  when  the  necessity  at  last  became  inevitable,  to  have  the 
Council  under  its  own  control ;  the  crafty  policy  by  which  it  succeeded, — 


428     ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.     [Letter  I. 

to  represent  the  universal  Church  f  Is  it  not  notorious  that 
when  the  Canon  of  your  faith  was  settled,  even  Papal  Europe 
was  so  poorly  represented  that  not  a  single  deputy  was  found 
in  the  Council  from  whole  nations  that  it  assumed  to  govern? 
Its  pretensions,  too,  to  be  guided  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  when 
its  whole  history  attests  that  the  spirit  of  the  Pope  was  the 
presiding  spirit  of  the  body,  afford  "damning  proof"  that 
it  was  given  up  to  "  hardness  of  heart  and  reprobacy  of 
mind."  You  have  favoured  us,  sir,  with  an  extract  from 
Hallam,  which  I  shall  not  crave  pardon  for  asserting  is 
entitled  to  about  as  much  respect  as  his  discriminating  cen- 
sures of  Pindar's  Greek.  I  am  surprised,  sir,  that  you 
should  have  ventured  to  commend  the  learning  of  the 
Fathers  of  Trent.^     The  matter  can  easily  be  settled  by  an 

when  we  look  at  these  things — and  whoever  has  read  the  history  of  Europe 
during  that  period  cannot  be  ignorant  of  thena — the  language  of  the  text 
cannot  be  deemed  too  severe.  The  Council  was  evidently  a  mere  tool 
of  the  Pope. 

1  The  following  extracts,  one  from  Robertson,  the  other  from  Father  Paul 
(a  Papist  himself),  may  be  taken  as  an  offset  to  the  testimony  of  Hallam, 
and  a  flat  contradiction  to  "A.  P.  F.'s"  account  of  the  learni',igoi  the  body: 

"  But  whichever  of  these  authors,"  says  Robertson,  referring  to  the 
histories  of  Father  Paul,  Pallavicino  and  Vargas  "  whichever  of  tliese 
authors  an  intelligent  person  takes  for  his  guide  in  forming  a  judgment 
concerning  the  spirit  of  the  Council,  he  must  discover  so  much  ambition 
as  well  as  artifice  among  some  of  the  members,  so  much  ignorance  and 
corruption  among  others;  he  must  observe  such  a  large  infusion  of  human 
policy  and  passions,  mingled  with  such  a  scanty  portion  of  that  simplicity 
of  heart,  sanctity  of  manners  and  love  of  truth  which  alone  qualify  men 
to  determine  what  doctrines  are  worthy  of  God,  and  what  worship  is 
acceptable  to  Him,— that  he  will  find  it  no  easy  matter  to  believe  that  any 
extraordinary  influence  of  tlie  Holy  Ghost  hovered  over  this  assembly 
and  dictated  its  decrees." — Charles  V.,  vol.  iii.,  b.  x.,  p.  400. 

"  Neither  was  there  among  those  prelates  any  one  remarkable  for  learn- 
ing :  some  of  them  were  lawyers,  perhaps  learned  in  that  profession,  but 
of  little  understanding  in  religion ;  few  divines,  but  of  less  than  ordinary 
sufficiency ;  the  greater  number  gentlemen  or  courtiers ;  and  for  their 
dignities,  some  were  only  titular,  and  the  major  part  bishops  of  so  small 
cities  that,  supposing  every  one  to  represent  his  people,  it  could  not  be 
said  that  one  of  a' thousand  in  Cliristendom  was  represented.  But  par- 
ticularly of  CJermany  there  was  not  so  much  as  one  bishop  or  divine."— 
Father  Paul,  p.  153. 


Letter  I.]     COUXCIL   OF   TRENT    AND   THE   CANON.  429 

appeal  to  facts.  Cajetan  was  reputed  to  be  the  most  emi- 
nent man  among  them,  "  unto  whom/'  says  Father  Paul, 
"  there  was  no  prelate  or  person  in  the  Council  who  would 
not  yield  in  learning,  or  thought  himself  too  good  to  learn 
of  him ;"  ^  yet,  with  all  his  learning,  he  knew  not  a  word 
of  Hebrew.  What  divine  of  the  present  day  would  be 
deemed  a  scholar  at  all  who  could  not  read  the  Scriptures 
in  the  original  tongues?  When  the  question  of  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  Vulgate  was  nnder  discussion  in  the  Council, 
what  a  holy  horror  was  displayed  of  grammarians  !  What 
shocking  alarm  lest  the  dignities  of  the  Church  should  be 
given  to  pedants,  instead  of  divines  and  canonists !  ^  Sir, 
why  this  dread  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  originals  if  your 
pastors  and  teachers  could  read  them  ?  Is  it  not  a  shrewd 
presumption  that  you  made  the  Bible  authentic  in  a  tongue 
which  you  could  read,  because  God  had  made  it  authentic 
in  tongues  which  you  could  not  read?  So  much  for  the  learn- 
ing of  these  venerable  men, 

II.  Having  sufficiently  shown  that  your  statement  is  a 
series  of  blunders,  and  your  eulogy  on  the  Council  wholly 
unfounded,  I  proceed  to  your  proof  The  point  which  you 
propose  to  establish  is,  that  the  Apocrypha  were  given  by 
inspiration  of  God.  You  undertake  to  furnish  that  positive 
proof  which  I  had  demanded,  and  without  which  I  had 
asserted  that  no  moral  obligation  could  exist  to  receive 
them.  Before,  however,  you  proceed  to  exhibit  your  argu- 
ment, you  step  aside  for  a  moment  to  show  us  the  extent 
of  your  learning  in  regard  to  the  disputes  which  at  various 
times  have  been  agitated  touching  the  books  that  should  be 
received  as  inspired.  Sir,  the  object  of  such  statements  is 
obvious — you  wish  to  create  the  impression  that  the  whole 
subject  of  the  Canon  is  involved  in  inextricable  confusion, 
and  that  the  only  asylum  for  the  doubting  and  distressed, 
the  only  place  in  which  the  truth  can  be  found  and  perplex- 
ities resolved,  is  the  bosom  of  your  own  communion.  In 
your  zeal  to  represent  Protestants  as  without  any  solid 
1  Page  145.  =  Father  Paul,  page  146. 


430     AKGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Letter  II. 

foundations  for  their  faith,  it  would  be  well  to  confine  your- 
self to  statements  better  supported  than  some  that  you  have 
made.  That  the  Sadduoees,  as  a  sect,  rejected  all  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  with  the  exception  of  the  Pentateuch, 
is  certainly  not  to  be  received  upon  the  conjectures  of  the 
Fathers  against  the  violent  improbabilities  which  press  the 
assertion — improbabilities  so  violent  that,  with  all  his  re- 
gard for  the  Fathers,  Basnage^  has  been  compelled  to 
soften  down  the  proposition  into  the  milder  statement  that 
this  skeptical  sect  only  attributed  greater  authority  to  the 
writings  of  Moses  than  to  the  rest  of  the  Canon.  If  by 
the  Albigenses  you  mean  the  Paulicians,  you  can  know  but 
little  about  them  except  what  you  have  gathered  from  their 
bitter  and  implacable  enemies.  The  documents  of  their 
faith  have  all  perished.  You  cannot  be  ignorant,  how- 
ever, that  Protestant  divines  have  constructed  a  strong 
argument  from  the  very  nature  of  their  origin  to  rebut  the 
assertion  which  you  have  ventured  to  assume  as  true. 


LETTER   II. 

THE   ARGUMENT    FOR    INSPIRATION    EXAMINED. 

I  COME  now,  sir,  to  the  examination  of  your  argument 
for  the  inspiration  of  the  Apocrypha,  as  well  as  of  all 
the  other  books  which  you  profess  to  receive  as  sacred  and 
canonical.  In  appreciating  the  force  and  importance  of  this 
argument  it  will  be  necessary  to  bear  distinctly  in  mind 
that  the  conclusion  which  you  aim  to  establish  is  not  to  be 
probably  time,  but  infallibly  certain.  You  require  of  those 
who  undertake  to  determine   for   themselves  what   books 

'  B.isnage,  History  of  the  Jews,  B.  ii.,  ch.  vi.,  p.  96. — Brucker,  Crit. 
Hist.  Phil.,  torn,  ii.,  pp.  721,  722.  See  particnUirly  Eichhorn,  who  has 
clenrly  .shown  that  the  charge  is  unfounded :  Einleit.,  4th  Edit.,  vol.  i., 
p.  136. 


Letter  II.]  ARGUMENT   FOR    INSPIRATION    EXAMINED.    431 

have  been  given  by  inspiration  of  God  to  decide  the  matter 
with  absolute  certainty,  or  to  renounce  the  exercise  of  their 
private  judgments.  In  proposing,  therefore,  a  "  more  ex- 
cellent way,"  you  could  not  think  of  substituting  one  which 
did  not  fulfil  this  high  and  important  condition.  Your 
conclusion,  then,  is  not  to  be  a  matter  of  opinion,  but  in- 
fallible truth ;  and  if  your  arguments  do  not  establish 
beyond  the  possibility  of  a  reasonable  doubt  the  inspiration 
of  the  Apocrypha,  they  fall  short  of  the  purpose  which  you 
have  brought  them  forward  to  sustain.  Your  proposition 
consequently  is  that  there  is  infallible  evidence  that  the 
Apocrypha  were  given  by  inspiration  of  God ;  or,  to  state 
it  in  another  form,  that  the  Apocrypha  were  inspired  is 
infallibly  and  absolutely  certain.  Your  general  argument 
may  be  compendiously  expressed  in  the  following  syllo- 
gism : 

"Whatever  the  pastors  of  the  Church  of  Eome  declare  to 
be  true  must  be  infallibly  certain  ; 

That  the  Apocrypha  were  inspired  the  pastors  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  declare  to  be  true ; 

Therefore  it  must  be  infallibly  certain. 

In  other  words,  the  Council  of  Trent  did  not  err  in  this 
particular  case  because  it  coidd  not  err  in  any  case.  It  is 
the  argumentwm  a  non  posse  ad  non  esse,  which  is  then  only 
logically  sound  when  the  non  posse  is  sufficiently  established. 
Since  the  whole  weight  of  your  reasoning  rests  upon  the 
truth  of  your  major  proposition,  you  have  very  judiciously 
employed  all  your  resources  in  fortifying  it.  Still,  sir,  after 
all  your  care,  it  is  signally  exposed  to  heretical  assaults. 
In  the  first  place,  you  must  be  aware  that  your  argument  is 
vitiated  by  that  species  of  paralogism  which  logicians  denom- 
inate ambiguity  of  the  middle.  What  is  the  precise  exten- 
sion of  the  words  "  pastors  of  tlie  Church  of  Rome"  ? 
They  may  be  understood  either  universally,  particularly,  or 
distributively;  and  you  will  excuse  me  for  saying  that  in 
the  course  of  your  first  letter  you  have  either  employed 
them  in  each  of  these  different  applications,  or  I  have  been 


432     ARGUMENTS   FOR  APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Letter  IL 

wholly  iinaLlc  to  apprehend  your  meaning.  At  one  time  it 
would  seem  that  you  mean  the  whole  body  of  your  priest- 
hood collected  together  in  a  grand  assembly.  You  speak 
of  "  a  body  of  individuals,  to  whom,  in  their  collective  capa- 
city, God  has  given  authority  to  make  an  unerring  decision." 
Then,  again,  you  inform  us  that  the  "  pastors  of  the  Cath- 
olic Church"  (meaning,  of  course,  the  Church  of  Rome) 
"  claim  to  compose  it."  In  addition  to  this,  you  speak  of  a 
single  priest  "presenting  himself  to  instruct  a  Christian  or 
an  infidel"  as  a  member  of  the  body ;  whence,  the  inference 
is  natural  and  necessary  that  every  priest  is  a  member  of  the 
body.  From  a  comparison  of  these  various  passages  in  your 
first  letter  it  would  evidently  appear  that  you  employed  the 
words  "pastors  of  the  Church  of  Rome"  in  your  major 
proposition  in  their  fullest  extension.  If,  then,  you  meant 
an  assembly  composed  of  all  the  pastors  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  comprised  only  a  small 
portion  of  your  teachers,  has  manifestly  not  the  shadow  of 
a  claim  to  the  precious  virtue  of  infallibility.  In  this  case 
your  major  might  be  true,  and  yet  your  minor  would  be  so 
evidently  false  as  to  destroy  completely  the  validity  of  your- 
conclusion.  A  body  consisting  of  all  the  pastors  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  never  has  met,  never  will  meet,  and,  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  never  can  meet;  and  an  infallibility 
lodged  in  such  an  assembly  for  the  guidance  of  human 
faith  or  the  regulation  of  human  practice  is  just  as  intangi- 
ble and  Avorthless  as  if  it  were  lodged  with  the  man  in  the 
moon.  Still,  whether  this  infallible  tribunal  were  accessible 
or  not,  your  argument  would  be  a  sophism.  It  would  stand 
precisely  thus  :  Whatsoever  all  the  pastors  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  in  their  collective  capacity  declare  must  be  infallibly 
certain.  That  the  Apocrypha  were  inspired  some  of  the 
pastors  of  the  Church  of  Rome  collected  at  Trent  declared. 
Therefore,  it  must  be  infallibly  certain.  An  infallible  con- 
clusion, undoubtedly ! 

But,  sir,  the  words  may  be  taken  particularly.     If,  how- 
ever, they  are  to  be  taken  in  a  restricted  sense,  you  should 


Letter  II.]   ARGUMENT    FOR    INSPIRATION    EXAMINED.    433 

have  told  us  precisely  what  limitation  you  intended  to  pre- 
fix, otherwise  your  reasoning  may  be  still  vitiated  by  an 
ambiguous  middle.  Without  such  an  explanation  w^e  have 
no  means  of  ascertaining  whether  the  Avords  as  employed  in 
the  minor  coincide  as  they  should  do  with  the  same  words 
as  employed  in  the  major.  You  should  have  told  us  under 
what  circumstances  infallibility  attaches  to  some  pastors  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  if  you  indeed  intended  to  limit  the 
phrase.  That  you  have  occasionally  used  it  in  a  limited 
sense  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  you  attribute  infallibility 
to  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  was  certainly  a  small  body 
compared  with  all  the  pastors  of  your  entire  Church.  Are 
you  prepared  to  say  that  any  number  of  Popish  pastors  met 
under  any  circumstances  shall  be  infallibly  guided  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  all  their  decisions  concerning  doctrine  and 
practice — that  even  the  same  number  which  met  at  Trent, 
collected  together  by  accident,  or  merely  by  mutual  consent, 
would  be  possessed  of  the  same  exemption  from  all  possi- 
bility of  error  Avhich  you  ascribe  to  Trent  ?  If  you  are  not 
prepared  to  make  this  assertion,  your  major  proposition  is 
not  absolutely  true,  but  only  under  special  limitations. 
These  limitations  are  not  even  stated,  much  less  defined;  and 
while  your  leading  proposition  is  left  in  this  unsettled  con- 
dition, what  logician  can  determine  whether  your  argument 
be  anything  more  than  a  specious  fallacy  ?  Certain  it  is 
that  it  can  never  be  regarded  as  conclusive  until  you  show 
that  all  those  conditions  were  fulfilled  in  the  Council  of  Trent 
which  are  necessary  to  secure  infallibility  to  '^  some  of  the 
pastors"  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Where  in  all  your  let- 
ters have  you  touched  this  point?  What  was  there  that 
distinguished  the  Fathers  of  Trent  from  an  equal  number 
of  bishops  and  divines  met  together  upon  their  own  respon- 
sibility, in  such  a  way  as  to  make  the  former  infallible  and 
the  latter  not  ?  Was  it  the  authority  of  the  Pope  ?  Then 
your  argument  was  not  complete  until  you  had  proved  with 
absolute  certainty  that  a  Papal  bull  secures  the  guidance  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.     Was  it  the  concurrence  of  the  Emperor? 

Vol.  III.— 28 


434     ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [LETTER  II. 

This  matter  is  nowhere  established.  Was  it  both  combined  ? 
What  was  it,  sir?  Let  me  remind  you  that  as  you  aim  at 
an  infallible  conclusion,  every  step  of  your  argument  must  be 
supported  by  infallible  proof.  There  must  be  no  hidden 
ambiguities,  no  rash  assumptions,  no  precipitate  deductions. 
In  so  solemn  a  business  you  should  construct  a  solid  fabric, 
able  to  support  the  enormous  weight  which  you  would  have 
us  to  rest  upon  it. 

There  is  still  another  meaning  which  your  major  propo- 
sition may  bear.  You  may  have  employed  the  words  "  pas- 
tors of  the  Church  of  Rome "  in  a  distributive  sense,  and 
then  you  would  distinctly  inform  us  that  every  priest  belong- 
ing to  your  sect  shall  infallibly  teach  the  truth.  The  appli- 
cation of  your  argument  to  the  condition  of  the  ignorant 
and  unlearned  absolutely  requires  this  sense.  According  to 
you  every  man,  no  matter  what  may  be  his  condition  or 
attainments,  may  have  infallible  evidence  on  the  subject  of 
the  Canon.  Where  is  he  to  find  it  ?  In  the  instructions  of 
the  priest  who  informs  him  what  books  were  inspired  and 
Avhat  books  arose  from  "  private  interpretation  "  ?  The  tes- 
timony of  the  single,  individual  priest  is  all  the  evidence 
that  he  does  or  can  have.  If,  then,  he  has  infallible  evi- 
dence, the  testimony  of  the  priest,  which  is  his  only  evidence, 
must  be  infallible,  and  consequently  the  priest  himself  must 
be  infallible  too,  or  incapable  of  teaching  error.  It  is  not 
enough  that  the  water  should  be  pure  at  the  fountain,  it 
must  also  be  pure  in  the  channels  through  which  it  is  con- 
veyed. The  Council  of  Trent  may  have  been  infallible, 
but  if  it  has  only  fallible  expounders,  the  people  can  have 
nothing  but  fallible  evidence.  According  to  you,  however, 
the  people  do  have  infallible  evidence ;  therefore,  the  Coun- 
cil must  have  infallible  expounders ;  therefore,  every  pastqr 
must  be   individually  infallible.^      While  your  argument, 

^  "Though  there  have  been  infinite  disputes  as  to  where  the  infallibility 
resides,  what  are  the  doctrines  it  has  definitively  pronounced  true,  and 
■who  to  the  individual  is  the  infallible  expounder  of  what  is  thus  infallibly 
pronounced  infallible,  yet  he  who  receives  this  doctrine  in  its  integrity  has 
nothing  more  to  do  than  to  eject  his  reason,  sublime  his  faith  into  credu- 


Letter  II.]  ARGUMENT   FOR   INSPIRATION    EXAMINED.    435 

however,  indispensably  requires  this  sense,  you  seem  to  dis- 
claim it  in  those  passages  of  your  letters  which  speak  of  a 
body  of  individuals  in  their  collective  capacity  as  the  chosen 
depository  of  the  truth  of  God.  How,  I  beseech  you,  is  a 
poor  Protestant  heretic,  with  no  other  helps  but  his  gram- 
mar and  lexicon,  and  no  other  guide  but  his  own  reason,  to 
detect  your  real  meaning  in  this  mass  of  ambiguity  and  con- 
fusion? I  would  not  misrepresent  you,  and  yet  I  confess 
that  I  do  not  understand  you.  I  can  put  no  intelligible 
sense  upon  your  words  which  shall  make  all  the  parts  of 
your  letter  consistent  with  themselves.  You  seem  to  have 
shifted  your  position  as  often  as  you  added  to  your  para- 
graphs. We  have  no  less  than  four  distinct  propositions 
covertly  concealed  under  the  deceitful  terms  of  your  major 
premiss : 

1.  Whatsoever  all  the  pastors  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
declare  must  be  infallibly  true. 

2.  Whatsoever  some  of  the  pastors  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  under  certain  special  limitations,  declare,  must  be 
infallibly  true. 

3.  Whatsoever  some  of  the  pastors  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  under  any  circumstances,  declare,  must  be  infalli- 
bly true. 

4.  Whatsoever  any  priest  or  pastor  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  declares  must  be  infallibly  true. 

lity,  and  reduce  his  creed  to  these  two  comprehensive  articles:  'I  believe 
whatsoever  the  Church  believes;  'I  believe  that  the  Church  believes 
whatsoever  my  father  confessor  believes  that  she  believes.'  For  thus  he 
reasons:  Nothing  is  more  certain  than  whatsoever  God  says  is  infal- 
libly true  ;  it  is  infallibly  true  that  the  Church  says  just  what  God  says; 
it  is  infallibly  true  that  what  the  Church  says  is  known ;  and  it  is  also 
infallibly  true  that  my  father  confessor,  or  the  parson  of  the  next  parish, 
is  an  infallible  expositor  of  what  is  thus  infallibly  known  to  be  the  Churcli's 
infallible  belief  of  what  God  has  declared  to  be  infallibly  true.  If  any 
one  uf  the  links,  even  the  last,  in  this  strange  sorites,  be  supposed  unsound, 
if  it  be  not  true  that  the  priest  is  an  infallible  expounder  to  the  individual 
of  the  Church's  inCillibllity,  if  his  judgment  be  only  'private  judgment,' 
we  come  back  at  once  to  the  perplexities  of  the  common  theory  of  private 
judgment." — Edinburgh  Review,  No.  139,  Amer.  reprint,  p.  206. 


436   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.    [Letter  II. 

Until,  sir,  you  shall  condescend  to  throw  more  light  upon 
the  intricacies  of  your  style,  your  leading  proposition  must 
stand  like  an  unknown  quantity  in  Algebra,  and  for  aught 
that  appears  to  the  contrary  the  letter  x  might  have  been 
just  as  safely  and  just  as  definitely  substituted.  Those  -who 
look  for  an  infallible  conclusion  in  this  reasoning  must  not 
be  surprised  if  they  meet  with  the  success  which  rewards 
the  easy  credulity  of  a  child  in  seeking  for  golden  treasures 
at  the  foot  of  the  rainbow.  Thousands  have  fully  believed 
that  they  were  there,  but  none  have  been  able  to  reach 
the  spot. 

The  infallibility  of  testimony  which  you  attribute  to  the 
pastors  of  the  Church  of  Rome  you  endeavour  to  collect 
from  two  general  propositions,  which  it  is  necessary  to  your 
argument  to  link  together  as  antecedent  and  consequent. 
First,  you  inform  us  that  God  must  have  "  given  authority 
to  a  body  of  individuals  in  their  collective  capacity  to  make 
an  unerring  decision  upon  the  subject"  of  the  Canon;  and 
then  you  infer  that  if  such  a  body  exists  at  all  it  must  be 
composed  of  the  pastors  and  teachers  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  Until  you  can  show  that  the  antecedent  in  the 
proposition  is  necessarily  true,  and  the  consequent  just  as 
necessarily  connected  with  it,  you  must  acknowledge,  sir, 
that  you  have  failed  in  presenting  to  your  readers  what 
your  extravagant  pretensions  require — an  wfaUible  conclu- 
sion. You  must  show,  according  to  the  process  of  argu- 
ment which  you  have  prescribed  for  yourself,  not  only  that 
an  infallible  body  exists,  but  that  it  is  and  can  be  composed 
of  no  other  elements  but  those  which  you  embrace  under 
the  dark  and  unknown  phrase,  "pastors  of  the  Catholic 
Church."  Deficiency  of  proof  on  either  of  these  points  is 
fatal  to  your  cause. 

It  is  not  a  little  remarkable,  in  the  history  of  human 
paradox,  contradiction  and  absurdity,  that  absolute  infalli- 
bility should  be  claimed  for  the  testimony  of  those  who,  if 
tried  by  the  ordinary  laws  which  regulate  human  belief, 
would  be  found  destitute  of  any  decent  pretensions  to  the 


Letter  II.]  ARGUMENT    FOE,   INSPIRATION    EXAMINED.    437 

common  degree  of  credibility.  You  have  presented  the 
pastors  of  the  Church  of  Home  before  us  distinctly  in  the 
attitude  of  witnesses.  Their  power  in  regard  to  articles  of 
faith  is  simply  declarative ;  they  can  only  transmit  to  others 
pure  and  uncorrupted  tliat  which  they  received  at  the  hands 
of  the  Apostles.  They  can  add  nothing  to  it,  they  can 
take  nothing  from  it,  and  whatever  they  may  declare  to  be 
the  truth  of  God,  according  to  the  original  preaching  of 
the  Apostles,  w^e  are  bound  to  receive  upon  their  testimony. 
"Whatsoever  they  declare  or  testify  to  be  true,  according  to 
your  statement,  must  be  infallibly  certain.  Now  the  credi- 
bility of  a  witness  depends  as  much  upon  his  moral  integ- 
rity as  upon  his  means  and  opportunities  of  knowledge. 
He  must  not  only  know  the  truth,  but  be  disposed  to  speak 
it.  As,  too,  our  assent  to  testimony  is  ultimately  founded 
upon  our  instinctive  belief  that  every  effect  must  have  its 
adequate  cause,  when  existing  causes  can  be  assigned  which 
are  sufficient  to  account  for  the  deposition  of  a  witness 
apart  from  the  truth  of  his  declarations,  we  are  slow  to  rely 
on  his  veracity.  In  other  words,  when  he  is  known  to  be 
under  strong  temptations  to  pervert,  conceal  or  misstate 
facts,  we  proportionably  subtract  from  the  weight  of  his 
evidence,  and  if  it  should  so  happen  that  he  had  ever  been 
previously  detected  in  a  lie,  few  would  be  inclined  to  receive 
his  testimony.  If  these  remarks  be  just,  whoever  would  un- 
dertake to  establish  the  credibility  of  your  pastors  must  prove 
that  they  are  possessed  of  such  a  degree  of  moral  honesty 
as  to  constitute  a  complete  exemption  from  all  adequate 
temptations  to  bear  false  witness.  To  prove  their  know- 
ledge of  the  subject  is  not  enough,  their  integrity  must  also 
be  fully  made  out.  Any  abstract  arguments,  however 
refined  and  ingenious,  would  be  liable  to  a  palpable  reduc- 
tio  ad  absurduiii  if  after  all  their  extravagant  pretensions 
it  should  be  ascertained  from  undeniable  facts  that  your 
priesthood  has  ever  been  found  destitute  of  those  sterling 
moral  qualities  which  lie  at  the  foundation  of  all  our  confi- 
dence in  testimony.     Has  it  ever  been  shown,  sir,  that  the 


438    ARGUMENTS   FOR    APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.    [Lettek  II. 

bishops  of  your  Church  have  never  been  exposed,  from  their 
lordly  ambition  and  indomitable  lust,  to  adequate  motives 
for  bearing  record  to  a  lie  ?  Has  it  ever  been  proved  that 
the  purity  of  their  manners  and  the  sanctity  of  their  lives 
have  always  been  such  as  to  render  them  the  most  unexcep- 
tionable witnesses  on  the  holy  subject  of  religion  ?  How 
will  you  dispose  of  the  remarkable  testimony  of  Pope 
Adrian  VI.,  who  confessed  through  his  nuncio  to  the  Diet 
of  Nuremberg  that  the  deplorable  condition  of  the  Church 
was  "  caused  by  the  sins  of  men,  especially  of  the  priests 
and  prelates'^  ?  What  say  you,  sir,  to  that  admirable  com- 
mentary on  the  honesty  and  integrity  of  your  pastors,  the 
"  Centum  Gravamina"  of  the  same  memorable  Diet,  which 
was  carefully  and  deliberately  drawn  up  with  a  full  know- 
lege  of  the  facts  and  despatched  with  all  possible  rapidity 
to  Kome?  Do  the  records  of  the  past  furnish  no  authenti- 
cated instances  in  which  your  infallible  pastors  have  either 
testified  to  falsehood  themselves  or  applauded  it  in  others? 
Sir,  if  all  history  be  not  a  fable,  the  priesthood  of  Rome, 
taken  as  a  body,  can  yield  in  corruption,  ambition,  tyranny 
and  licentiousness  to  no  class  of  men  that  ever  cursed  the 
earth.  If  infallible  honesty  can  be  proved  of  them,  if  the 
Holy  Spirit  has  indeed  been  a  perpetual  resident  in  this 
cage  of  unclean  birds,  if  the  ordinary  credibility  Avhich 
attaches  to  a  common  Avitness  can  be  ascribed  to  them  where 
their  pride,  ambition  or  interest  is  involved,  then  all  moral 
reasoning  falls  to  the  ground,  the  measures  of  truth  are 
deceitful,  and  we  may  quietly  renounce  the  exercise  of  judg- 
ment and  yield  to  the  caprices  of  fancy.  No,  sir ;  instead 
of  being  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  the  habitation  of  the  Holy 
One  of  Israel,  your  dilapidated  Church  is  a  dreary  spectacle 
of  moral  desolation,  peopled  only  by  wild  beasts  of  the 
desert,  full  of  doleful  creatures,  owls,  satyrs  and  dragons.^ 

'  "Without  entering  into  the  mazes  of  a  frivolous  and  unintelligible 
dis])nte  about  words,  it  is  sufficient  to  remark  that  the  supernatural  and 
infallible  guidance  of  a  Church  wliich  leaves  it  to  stumble  on  the  thres- 
hold of  morality,  to  confound  tlie  essential  distinctions  of  rigiit  and 
wrong,  to  recommend  the  violation  of  the  most  solemn  compacts,  and  the 


I 


Letter  III.]     ARGUMENT    FOR    AN    INFALLIBLE    BODY.     439 

Tried  in  the  scale  in  which  other  witnesses  are  tried, 
your  witnesses  will  be  found  deplorably  wanting.  Hence, 
you  very  wisely  evade  all  moral  considerations,  and  resolve 
your  boasted  infallibility,  not  into  your  own  attachment  to 
the  truth,  but  into  the  stern  necessity  of  uttering  whatever 
God  by  the  irresistible  operation  of  His  Spirit  shall  put  into 
your  mouth,  as  Balaam's  ass,  through  His  power,  overcame 
the  impediments  of  nature  and  spoke  in  the  language  of  men. 
Whether  you  have  succeeded  in  demonstrating  by  infallible 
evidence  that  you  are  the  subjects — the  passive  and  me- 
chanical subjects — of  such  an  uncontrollable  afflatus  from 
above  as  may  entitle  you  to  a  credit  which  your  honesty 
and  integrity  w^ould  never  warrant,  remains  now  to  be  in- 
quired. 


LETTER    III. 

THE   ARGUMENT    FOR    AN    INFALLIBLE    BODY. 

In  resuming  now  the  analysis  of  your  argument,  it  may 
be  well  to  repeat  that  the  ultimate  conclusion  which  you 
propose  to  reach  is  the  infallibility  of  Rome  as  a  witness  for 
the  truth.  This  point  you  endeavour  to  establish  by  show- 
ing, in  the  first  place,  that  there  must  be  some  "  body  of  in- 
dividuals to  whom,  in  their  collective  capacity,"  God  has  gra- 

murder  of  men  against  whom  not  a  shadow  of  criminality  is  alleged 
except  a  dissent  from  its  dogmas,  is  nothing  worth,  but  must  ever  ensure 
the  ridicule  and  abhorrence  of  those  who  judge  the  tree  by  its  fruits,  and 
who  will  not  be  easily  persuaded  that  the  eternal  fountain  of  love  and 
purity  inhabits  the  breast  -wrhich  'breathes  out  cruelty  and  slaughter.' 
If  persecution  for  conscience'  sake  is  contrary  to  the  principles  of  justice 
and  the  genius  of  Christianity,  then,  I  say,  this  holy  and  infallible  Church 
was  so  abandoned  of  God  as  to  be  permitted  to  legitimate  the  foulest 
crimes,  to  substitute  murders  for  sacrifice,  and  to  betray  a  total  ignorance  of 
the  precepts  and  spirit  of  the  religion  which  she  professed  to  support ;  and 
whether  the  Holy  Ghost  condescended,  at  the  same  moment,  to  illuminate 
one  hemisphere  of  minds  so  hardened  and  hearts  so  darkened,  may  be 
safely  left  to  the  judgment  of  common  sense." — HaWs  Works,  vol.  iv., 
p.  249. 


440  ARGUMENTS  FOE  APOCRYPHA  DISCUSSED.  [Letter  III. 

ciously  vouchsafed  the  precious  prerogative  which  you  claim 
for  your  pastors.  According  to  you,  the  whole  question  of  the 
truth  of  Christianity  turns  upon  the  existence  of  an  infallible 
tribunal  on  earth,  from  which  men  may  receive  unerring  de- 
cisions in  matters  of  faith,  aud  without  which  the  over- 
whelming majority  of  the  race  must  be  abandoned  to  hope- 
less and  complete  infidelity.  If  there  were,  indeed,  no  es- 
cape from  the  dilemma  to  which  you  have  attempted  to 
reduce  us,  the  means  of  salvation  would  be  hardly  less  fatal 
than  the  dangers  from  which  they  are  appointed  to  rescue 
us.  But  it  may  yet  be  found,  sir,  that  a  merciful  God  has 
dealt  more  gently  wdth  His  children  than  to  commit  their 
fate  to  the  teachings  of  a  body  "  whose  garments  are  dyed  in 
blood,"  whose  whole  career  on  earth,  like  the  progress  of 
Joel's  locusts,  has  been  marked  by  ruin,  and  which,  if  its 
future  blessings  are  to  be  collected  from  its  past  achieve- 
ments, can  give  us  nothing  but  wormwood  aud  gall,  a  stone 
for  bread  and  a  serpent  for  a  fish.  The  friends  of  liberty 
and  man,  if  reduced  to  the  deplorable  alternative  of  reach- 
ing the  sacred  Scriptures  only  on  condition  of  submitting  to 
a  bondage  more  grievous  than  that  from  which  the  groaning 
Israelites  were  delivered  by  a  strong  hand  and  an  out- 
stretched arm,  would,  in  all  probability,  prefer  the  frozen  air 
of  infidelity  to  the  deadly  miasma  of  Rome.  But  I  am 
persuaded  that  no  such  dilemma,  so  fatal  in  either  horn, 
exists  in  reality ;  and  that  there  is  a  plan  by  which  we  may 
be  rescued  at  once  from  the  gloomy  horrors  of  skepticism 
and  the  despotic  cruelty  of  Rome.  To  you,  sir,  it  is  utterly 
inconceivable  that  the  infinite  God,  whose  judgments  are  un- 
searchable and  His  ways  past  finding  out,  should  have  been 
able  to  devise,  in  the  exhaustless  resources  of  His  wisdom, 
any  plan  of  authenticating  the  record  of  His  own  will  but 
that  which  you  have  prescribed.  You  undertake  to  prove 
that  there  must  be  a  body  of  individuals  authorized  to  make 
an  unerring  decision  upon  the  doctrines  of  religion  as  well 
as  the  truth  and  insj)iration  of  the  Scriptures,  from  the 
absolute  impossibility  that  any  other  scheme  could  be  efficient 


Letter  III.]  ARGUMENT   FOR    AN    INFALLIBLE   BODY.      441 

or  successful.  What  is  this  but  to  limit  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel  ?  You  would  do  well  to  remember  that  the  purposes 
of  God  are  not  adjusted  by  the  measures  of  human  prudence 
or  of  human  sagacity.  As  the  heavens  are  high  above  the 
earth,  so  His  thoughts  are  high  above  our  thoughts,  and  His 
ways  above  our  ways.  In  His  hands  broken  pitchers  and 
empty  lamps  are  capable  of  achieving  as  signal  execution  as 
armed  legions  or  chariots  of  fire.  To  judge,  therefore,  of 
the  schemes  of  the  Eternal  by  our  own  conceptions  of  expe- 
diency or  fitness — to  bring  the  plans  of  Him  who  is  won- 
derful in  counsel,  and  whose  government  is  vast  beyond  the 
possibility  of  mortal  conception,  to  the  fluctuating  standard 
of  the  wisdom  of  this  world  is  to  be  guilty  of  presumption, 
equalled  by  nothing  but  the  transcendent  folly  of  the  eflbrt. 
A  sound  philosophy  as  well  as  a  proper  reverence  for  God 
would  surely  dictate  that  His  appointments  must  always  be 
efficacious  and  successful,  simply  because  they  are  His  ap- 
pointments. We  are  not  at  liberty  upon  matters  of  this  sort 
to  indulge  in  vain  speculations  a  priori,  and  pronounce  of 
any  measures  that  they  cannot  be  adopted  because  they  seem 
ill-suited  to  their  ends.  It  is  true  wisdom  to  believe  that 
He  who  originally  established  the  connection  of  means  and 
ends  can  accomplish  His  purposes  by  the  feeblest  agents,  the 
most  unpromising  arrangements,  or  by  no  subsidiary  instru- 
ments at  all.  Plausible  objections  avail  nothing  against 
Divine  institutions.  Whatever  does  not  coiitradict  the  es- 
sential perfections  of  the  Deity,  nor  involve  a  departure 
from  that  eternal  law  of  right  which  finds  its  standard  in 
the  nature  of  God,  is  embraced  in  that  boundless  range  of 
possibilities  which  infinite  power  can  accomplish  by  a  single 
act  of  the  will.  Any  argument,  therefore,  which  bases  its 
conclusion  upon  the  gratuitous  assumption  that  the  wisdom  of 
God  and  the  conceptions  of  man  shall  be  found  to  harmonize 
is  built  uj)on  the  sand.  To  you,  sir,  the  theory  of  private 
judgment  may  be  encumbered  with  difficulties  so  insur- 
mountably great  as  to  transcend  your  ideas  of  the  power  of 
God  :  you  can  perceive  no  wisdom  in  a  plan  on  which  priests 


442    ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Letter  III. 

are  not  tyrants  and  the  people  are  not  slaves.  But  your 
objections  are  hardly  less  formidable  than  those  of  Jews  and 
Greeks  to  the  early  preaching  of  the  cross.  Still,  sir,  Christ 
crucified  was  the  power  of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  God. 
In  your  attempt  to  fathom  the  counsels  of  Jehovah  by  arbi- 
trary speculation,  and  to  settle  with  certainty  the  appoint- 
ments of  His  grace,  may  we  not  detect  the  degrading  effects 
of  a  superstition  which  tolerates  those  who  acknowledge  a 
god  in  a  feeble  mortal  and  find  objects  of  worship  in  de- 
parted men  ?  Certain  it  is  that  your  reasoning  involves  the 
tremendous  conclusion  that  the  great,  the  everlasting  Je- 
hovah, the  Creator  of  the  ends  of  the  earth,  is  altogether 
such  an  one  as  we  ourselves.  Do  you  not  tell  us,  in  effect, 
that  God  could  not  have  given  satisfactory  evidence  of  the 
truth  and  inspiration  of  His  own  Word  without  establish- 
ing a  visible  tribunal  protected  from  error  by  His  special 
grace  ?  And  that  He  is  thus  limited  in  His  resources,  thus 
necessarily  tied  up  to  the  one  only  plan  which  the  pastors  of 
Rome  have  found  so  prodigiously  profitable  to  them,  ac- 
cording to  your  reasoning,  must  be  received  as  an  infallible 
truth,  just  as  absolutely  certain  as  an  axiom  in  geometry. 
The  argument  by  which  you  reach  this  stupendous  conclu- 
sion has  been  wonderfully  laboured,  but  when  Aveighed  in 
the  balances  of  logical  propriety,  it  is  found  as  wonderfully 
wanting.  I  shall  now  proceed  in  all  candour  and  fidelity  to 
expose  the  "  nakedness  of  the  land." 

With  a  self-sufficiency  of  understanding  which  never 
betrayed  itself  in  such  illustrious  men  as  Bacon,  Newton, 
Locke  or  Boyle,  you  undertake  to  enumerate  all  the  possi- 
ble expedients  by  which  God  could  ascertain  His  creatures 
of  the  inspiration  of  His  Word.  These  you  reduce  to 
jour,  and  as  the  first  three,  according  to  you,  are  neither 
"  practicable  nor  efficient,"  the  fourth  remains  as  a  necessary 
truth.     In  the  species  of  argument^  which  you  have  thought 

^  The  argument  of  "  A.  P.  F."  is  a  destructive  disjunctive  conditional. 
It  may  most  conveniently  be  expressed  in  two  consecutive  syllogisms : 
A  man  must  either  judge  for  himself  concerning  the  inspiration  of  the 


Letter  III.]  ARGUMENT   FOR   AN    INFALLIBLE   BODY.      443 

proper  to  adopt,  the  validity  of  the  reasoning  depends  on 
two  circumstances  :  1st.  All  the  possible  suppositions  which 
can  be  conceived  to  be  true  must  be  actually  made ;  and, 
2dly,  Every  one  must  be  legitimately  shown  to  be  false  but 
the  one  which  is  embraced  in  the  conclusion.  If  all  the 
others  have  been  refuted,  that  must  be  true,  provided,  from 
the  nature  of  the  subject,  some  one  must  necessarily  be 
admitted.  In  the  present  case  it  is  freely  conceded  that 
there  is  some  way  of  settling  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  and 
hence  your  argument  proceeds  upon  a  legitimate  assumption.^ 
1.  Now,  sir,  the  first  question  which  arises  upon  a  criti- 
cal review  of  your  argument  is,  Do  your  four  schemes  com- 
pletely exhaust  the  subject?  Are  these  the  only  conceiva- 
ble plans  by  which  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  could 
be  satisfactorily  established?  If  not,  if  there  indeed  be 
other  methods  which  you  have  not  noticed,  other  schemes 
which  you  have  suppressed  or  overlooked,  some  one  of 
these  may  be  the  truth,  and  your  infallible  conclusion  con- 
sequently false.  In  Paley's  celebrated  argument  for  the 
benevolence  of  God,  if  he  had  simply  stated  that  the  Deity 
must  either  intend  our  happiness  or  misery,  and  had  omitted 
entirely  all  notice  of  the  third  supposition,  that  He  might 
be  indifferent  to  both,  the  conclusion,  however  true  in  itself, 

Scrii^tures,  or  rely  on  the  authority  of  others.  He  cannot  judge  for 
himself,  therefore  he  must  rely  on  the  authority  of  others.  This  is  the 
first  step. 

If  he  must  rely  on  authority,  it  must  either  be  the  authority  of  unin- 
spired individuals,  of  a  single  inspired  individual,  or  of  an  inspired  body 
of  individuals.  It  cannot  be  the  first  two,  therefore  it  must  be  the  last. 
Now,  according  to  the  books,  this  species  of  syllogism  must  contain  in  the 
major  all  the  suppositions  which  can  be  conceived  to  be  true ;  then,  the 
minor  must  remove  or  destroy  all  hut  one.  That  one,  from  the  necessity 
of  the  case,  becomes  established  in  the  conclusion.  The  argument  in 
question  violates  both  rules,  and  therefore,  upon  every  view  of  the  subject, 
must  be  a  fallacy. 

^  "  We  cannot  be  called  on  to  believe  any  proposition  not  sustained  by 
adequate  proof.  When  Almighty  God  deigned  to  inspire  the  words  con- 
tained in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  He  intended  they  should  be  held  and 
believed  to  be  inspired.  Therefore  there  does  exist  some  adequate  proof 
of  their  inspiration." — Letter  I. 


444   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Letter  III. 

would  not  have  been  logically  just.  "Without  pretending 
that  I  am  capable  of  specifying  all  the  methods  by  which 
God  might  authenticate  His  own  revelation,  I  can  at  least 
conceive  of  one,  in  addition  to  those  enumerated  by  you, 
which  might  have  been  adopted,  which  may  therefore  possi- 
bly be  true,  and  which,  until  you  have  shown  it  to  be  false, 
must  hold  your  triumphant  conclusion  in  abeyance.  It  is 
possible  that  God  Himself,  by  his  eternal  Spirit,  may  con- 
descend to  be  the  teacher  of  men,  and  enlighten  their  under- 
standings to  perceive  in  the  Scriptures  themselves  infallible 
marks  of  their  Divine  original.  That  you  should  so  entirely 
have  overlooked  this  hypothesis — wdiich  must  be  overthrown 
before  your  argument  can  stand — is  a  little  singular,  since 
it  is  distinctly  stated  in  the  very  chapter  of  the  AVestmin- 
ster  Confession  to  which  you  have  alluded.^ 

"  The  heavens,"  we  are  told,  "  declare  the  glory  of  God, 
and  the  firmament  showeth  His  handiwork."  "  For  the  invisi- 
ble tilings  of  Him  from  the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly 
seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that  are  made,  even  His 
eternal  power  and  Godhead."  If  the  material  workman- 
ship of  God  bears  such  clear  and  decisive  traces  of  its 
Divine  and  eternal  Author  as  to  leave  the  Atheist  and  idola- 
ter without  excuse,  who  shall  say  that  the  Word,  which  He 
has  exalted  above  every  other  manifestation  of  His  Name, 
may  not  proclaim  with  greater  power  and  a  deeper  emphasis 
that  it  is  indeed  the  law  of  His  mouth  ?  Who  shall  say 
that  the  composition  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  Scriptures 
may  not  be  distinguished  by  a  majesty,  grandeur  and  super- 
natural elevation  which  are  suited  to  impress  the  reader 
with  an  irresistible  conviction  that  these  venerable  docu- 
ments are  the  true  and  faithful  sayings  of  God  ?  Is  there 
any  absurdity  in  asserting  with  a  distinguished  writer  that 
"the  words  of  God,  now  legible  in  the  Scriptures,  are  as 

^  "Our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible  truth  and  Divine 
authority  thereof  (Holy  Scriptures)  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  Word  in  our  hearts." —  Weslmin- 
ster  Confession,  chap.  i.  v. 


Letter  III.]  ARGUMENT   FOR   AN   INFALLIBLE    BODY.      445 

much  beyond  the  words  of  men  as  the  mighty  works  which 
Christ  did  were  above  their  works,  and  His  prophecies 
beyond  their  knowledge"?  Jehovah  has  left  the  outward 
universe  to  speak  for  itself.  Sun,  moon  and  stars  in  their 
appointed  orbits  proclaim  an  eternal  Creator,  and  require 
no  body  of  men,  "  of  individuals  in  their  collective  capa- 
city," to  interpret  their  voice,  or  to  teach  the  world  that 
"  the  hand  which  made  them  is  Divine."  Why  may  not 
the  Scriptures,  brighter  and  more  glorious  than  the  sun,  be 
left  in  the  same  way,  as  they  run  their  appointed  course,  to 
testify  to  all  that  their  source  "was  the  bosom  of  God,  and 
their  voice  the  harmony  of  the  world"?  Is  not  the  cha- 
racter of  God  as  clearly  portrayed  in  them  as  in  the  mute 
memorials  of  His  power  which  exist  around  us  and  above 
us  ?  Why  should  an  infallible  body  be  required  to  make 
known  the  Divine  original  of  the  Bible  when  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  establish  the  creation  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth  ? 
It  is  then  a  possible  supposition  that  the  Word  of  God  may 
be  its  own  witness,  that  the  sacred  pages  may  themselves 
contain  infallible  evidence  of  their  heavenly  origin  which 
shall  leave  those  without  excuse  who  reject  or  disregard 
them.  They  may  contain  the  decisive  proofs  of  their  own 
inspiration,  and  by  their  own  light  make  good  their  preten- 
sions to  canonical  authority. 

The  fact  that  multitudes  Avho  hold  the  Bible  in  their 
hand  do  not  perceive  these  infallible  tokens  of  its  supernat- 
ural origin  is  no  objection,  upon  your  own  principles,  to  the 
existence  of  such  irrefragable  evidence.  The  reality  of  the 
evidence  is  one  thing,  the  power  of  perceiving  it  quite  another. 
It  is  no  objection  to  the  brilliancy  of  the  sun  that  it  fails  to 
illuminate  the  blind.  Such  is  the  deplorable  darkness  of 
the  human  understanding  in  regard  to  the  things  that  per- 
tain to  God,  and  such  the  fearful  alienation  of  men  from 
the  perfection  of  His  character,  that  though  the  light  shines 
conspicuously  among  them  they  are  yet  unable  to  compre- 
hend its  rays.  Hence,  to  the  production  of  faith,  in  order 
that  the  evidence,  the  infallible  evidence  which  actually  exists, 


446   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Letter  III. 

may  accomplish  its  appropriate  effects,  the  "  Eternal  Spirit 
who  sends  forth  His  cherubim  and  seraphim  to  touch  the 
lips  of  whom  He  pleases"  must  be  graciously  vouch- 
safed to  illuminate  the  darkened  mind,  and  remove  the 
impediments  of  spiritual  vision.  The  infallible  evidence  is 
in  the  Scriptures ;  the  power  of  perceiving  it  is  the  gift  of 
God.  Your  own  writers,  sir,  acknowledge,  and  you  among 
the  number,  that  the  infallible  evidence  which  your  Church 
professes  to  present  cannot  produce  faith  without  God's 
grace,  so  that  evidence  may  be  infallible  and  yet  not  effect- 
ual, through  the  folly  and  perverseness  of  men.  Bellarmine 
declares  that  "  the  arguments  which  render  the  articles  of 
our  faith  credible  are  not  such  as  to  produce  an  undoubted 
faith,  unless  the  mind  be  Divinely  assisted."^  And  you 
have  told  us  that  the  teaching  of  your  pastors  meets  with  a 
firmer  and  readier  assent  among  minds  that  have  been 
touched  by  the  Spirit  of  God.^  Xow,  sir,  if  your  infallible 
evidence  can  yet  be  ineffectual  through  the  blindness  and 
wickedness  of  men,  you  cannot  say  that  the  Scriptures  are 
not  infallible  witnesses  of  their  own  authority  because  all 
who  possess  them  do  not  receive  their  testimony.  In  either 
case  the  illumination  of  God's  Spirit  is  the  means  by  which 
faith  is  really  produced.  According  to  you,  it  inclines  the 
understanding  to  receive  the  teaching  of  the  .pastors  of  your 
Church ;  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Westminster 
divines,  it  enlightens  the  mind  to  perceive  the  impressions 
of  Jehovah's  character  and  Jehovah's  hand  in  the  sacred 
oracles  themselves. 

There  is,  then,  evidently,  a  fifth  supposition  by  which  an 
humble  inquirer  after  truth  may  be  assured  of  the  Divine 

1  "Argumenta  enim  quae  articulos  fidei  nostrse  credibiles  faciunt  non 
talia  sunt  ut  fidem  omnino  indubitatam  reddant,  nisi  mens  divinitua 
adjuvetur."  De  Grat.  et  Lib.  Arb.,  Lib.  vi.,  cap.  iii. 

^  "We  should  ever  bear  in  mind,  too,  that  if  this  be  the  method  adopted 
by  Almighty  God,  if  in  reality,  as  the  hypothesis  requires,  He  speaks  to 
that  individual  through  this  teachvr.  His  Divine  grace  will  influence  the 
mind  of  the  novice  to  yield  a  more  ready  and  firm  assent  than  the  tend- 
ency of  our  nature  and  the  unaided  motives  of  human  authority  would 
produce.''  Letter  I. 


Letter  IIL]  ARGUMENT  FOR  AN   INFALLIBLE   BODY.      447 

inspiration  and  canonical  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
God  Himself  may  be  his  teacher,  and  the  illumination  of 
His  Spirit  may  be  the  means  by  which,  from  infallible  evi- 
dence contained  in  the  books  themselves,  their  Divine  inspi- 
ration may  be  certainly  collected.  Whether  true  or  false, 
right  or  wrong,  this  has  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of 
God  from   the  beginning.^     And  before  you  can  hope  to 

^  As  a  specimen  of  what  have  been  the  sentiments  of  distinguished 
writers,  I  give  a  few  extracts,  selected  from  tlie  midst  of  many  others 
equally  striking,  which  may  be  found  arranged  in  Owen's  admirable  Dis- 
course on  the  Keason  of  Faith.  Works,  vol.  iii.,  p.  359,  seq.  The  follow- 
ing passage  from  Clemens  Alexandrinus  is  remarkable  as  asserting  at 
once  the  sufficiency  of  Scripture  and  the  right  of  private  judgment  in 
opposition  to  all  human  authority : 

Oh  yap  aT/l&Jf  anocpaivofiEvoic  avOpuTTOiQ  wpoatxoilJ-^v  5ig  Kai  avTOTvocpdivEGBac 
err'  larfg  i^ECTiv,  Ei  d'  ovk  apxet  fiSvov  dn?.ug  tcTreiv  to  M^av,  d/\^a  KiffTuana- 
6ai  6ei  to  XsxSiv  ov  r^  If  avdp&Tcuv  dva/xhofiev  fiapTvpiav,  aXla  ttj  tov 
Kvpiov  (puvTJ  TTiGTovjueda  to  (t/tov/hsvov.  '^H  irdauv  awodei^euv  exeyyvoTepa 
fidXkov  6e  fj  jidvT]  dndSei^ig  ovaa  Tvyxdvei,  "OvTug  ovv  koX  rjneiq  air'  dvruv  rrepl 
civTuv  Tuv  ypacpuv  te^iEiuq  cittoSeikvvvtec  ek.  TcicTTEug  nEiddfXEda  aTroSetK-iKUQ, 
Strom.,  Lib.  vii.,  cap.  xvi.  "  For  we  would  not  attend  or  give  credit  sim- 
ply to  the  definitions  of  men,  seeing  we  have  a  right  also  to  define  in  con- 
tradiction unto  them.  And  as  it  is  not  sufficient  merely  to  say  or  assert 
what  appears  to  be  the  truth,  but  also  to  beget  a  belief  of  what  is  spoken, 
we  expect  not  the  testimony  of  men,  but  confirm  that  which  is  inquired 
about  with  the  voice  of  the  Lord,  which  is  more  full  and  firm  than  any 
demonstration ;  yea,  which  rather  is  the  only  demonstration.  Thus  we, 
taking  our  demonstration  of  the  Scripture  out  of  the  Scripture,  are  assured 
hy  faith  as  by  demonstration." 

Basil  on  Psalm  cxv.  says :  UiaTic,  ivx'  ^  yEo/^sTpiKaig  avdyKaiq,  dA/V  ■fi 
Tciig  TOV  'KVEVjj.aTOQ  kvEpynaiQ  EKyivojiEvrj.  "  Faith  is  not  the  eflfect  of  geo- 
metrical demonstrations,  but  of  the  efficacy  of  the  Spirit." 

Nemes.  de  Horn.,  cap.  ii. :  'H  tuv  dhuv  "koyiuv  ^Ldacna'Aia  to  ttiotov  d(p' 
EavT>]c  Exovaa  6id  to  •&e6tvev(ttov  Eivai,  "  The  teaching  of  Divine  oracles 
has  its  credibility  from  itself,  because  of  their  Divine  inspiration. 

The  words  of  Austin  (Conf.  Lib.  ii.,  cap.  iii.)  are  too  well  known  to 
require  to  be  cited. 

The  second  Council  of  Orange,  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century,  in 
its  fifth  and  seventh  canons,  is  explicit  to  ray  purpose.  Fleury,  b.  xxxii.  12 : 
Si  quis  sicut  augmentum  ita  etiam  initium  fidei,  ipsumque  credulitatis 
affectum,  ....  non  per  gratise  donum,  id  est,  per  inspirationem  Spiritug 
Sancti,  corrigentem  voluntatem  nostram  ab  infidelitate  ad  fidem,  ab  im- 
pietate  ad  pietatem,  sed  naturaliter  nobis  inesse  dicit,  apostolicis  dogmati- 
bus  adversarius  approbatur.     Si  quis  per  naturae  vigorem  bonum  aliquid 


448   ARGUMENTS   FOR  APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Letter  III, 

overthrow  it  you  must  ))e  prepared  to  prove — what,  I  tliink, 
you  will  find  an  irksome  undertaking — that  the  Scriptures  do 
not  bear  any  signs  or  marks  characteristic  of  their  Author, 

quod  ad  salutem  pertinet  vitse  seternje  cogitare  ut  expedit,  aut  eligere,  sive 
salutari,  id  est,  evangelicse  prsedicationi  consentire  posse  confirmat  absque 
illuminatione  et  inspiratione  Spiritus  Sancti,  qui  dat  omnibus  suavitatem 
in  consentiendo  et  credendo  veritati,  hseretico  fallitur  spiritu :  "  If  any 
one  say  that  the  beginning  or  increase  of  faith  and  the  very  afiection  of 
belief  is  in  us,  not  by  the  gift  of  grace — that  is,  by  the  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  correcting  our  will  from  infidelity  to  faith,  from  impiety  to 
piety — but  by  nature,  he  is  an  enemy  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles.  If 
any  man  affirm  that  he  can  by  the  vigour  of  nature  think  anything  good 
which  pertains  to  salvation  as  he  ouglrt,  or  choose  to  consent  to  saving — 
that  is,  to  evangelical — preaching  without  the  illumination  and  inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  gives  to  all  the  sweet  relish  in  consenting  to  and 
believing  the  truth,  he  is  deceived  by  an  heretical  spirit." 

Arnobius  advers.  Gentes,  Lib.  iii.,  c.  i.,  says :  "  Neque  enim  stare  sine 
assertoribus  non  potest  religio  Christiana?  Aut  eo  esse  comprobatur  vera, 
si  adstipulatores  habuerit  plurimos,  et  auctoritatem  ab  hominibus  sump- 
serit?  Suis  ilia  contenta  est  viribus  et  veritatis  propria  fundarainibus 
nititur  nee  spolietur  sua  vi,  etiam  si  nullum  habeat  vindicem,  immo  si 
linguae  omnes  contra  faciant  contraque  nitantur  et  ad  fidem  illius  abrogan- 
dam  consensionis  unitae  animositate  conspirent."  "  Shall  it  be  said  that 
the  Christian  religion  cannot  maintain  itself  without  the  aid  of  men  to 
vindicate  its  truth  ?  Or  shall  its  truth  be  said  to  depend  on  the  warranty 
and  authority  of  man  ?  No,  Christianity  is  sufficient  for  itself,  in  its  o\Yn 
inherent  strength,  and  stands  firm  upon  the  basis  of  its  own  inherent  truth  ; 
it  could  lose  none  of  its  power,  though  it  had  not  a  single  advocate.  Nay, 
it  would  maintain  its  ground,  though  all  the  tongues  of  men  were  to  contra- 
dict and  resist  it,  and  to  combine  with  rage  and  fury  to  effect  its  destruction." 

The  great  Athanasius  (Orat.  Cont.  Gent.,  c.  i.)  says: 

A'vrdpKEic  fiev  yap  eimv  di  &ytai  mi  fJeonveix-ai  ypa4)di  irpoQ  T?p  r^f  aArjdkia^' 
a-jrayyeliav.  "The  Christian  faith  carries  within  itself  the  discovery  of 
its  own  authority,  and  the  Holy  Scriptures  which  God  has  inspired  are  all- 
sufficient  in  themselves  for  the  evidence  of  their  own  truth."  There  is  a 
beautiful  passage  to  the  same  purport  in  Baptista  Mantuanus  de  Patient. 
Lib.  iii.,  cap.  ii.  It  concludes  as  follows :  "  Cur  ergo  non  omnes  credunt 
evangelio  ?  Quod  non  omnes  trahuntur  a  Deo.  Sed  longa  opus  est  dis- 
putatione?  Firmiter  sacris  Scripturis  ideo  credimus  quod  divinam  inspi- 
rationem  intus  accepimus."  "  Why,  then,  do  not  all  believe  the  Gospel  ? 
Because  all  are  not  drawn  of  God.  But  what  need  of  any  long  disputa- 
tion? We,  therefore,  firmly  believe  the  Scriptures  because  we  have 
received  a  Divine  inspiration."  Those  who  wish  to  find  a  large  collec- 
tion of  Patristic  passages  bearing  on  this  point  will  meet  with  ample  sat- 
isfaction in  chap.  ix.  of  Good's  Kule  of  Faith.     The  whole  subject  is  ably 


Letter  III.]  ARGUMENT    FOR   AN   INFALLIBLE   BODY.      449 

and  that  God's  grace  will  not  be  vouchsafed  to  the  humble 
inquirer  to  enable  him  to  perceive,  according  to  the  prayer 
of  the  Psalmist,  "  wondrous  things  out  of  His  law."  Unless 
you  can  disprove  this  fifth  hypothesis,  and  show  it  to  be — 
what  you  have  asserted  of  three  that  you  have  named — 
neither  "practicable  nor  efficient,"  your  triumphant  argu- 
ment vanishes  into  air ;  it  violates  the  very  first  law  of  that 
species  of  complex  syllogism  to  which  it  may  be  easily 
reduced.  You  have  beaten  your  drum,  and  flourished  your 
trumj3ets,  and  shouted  victory  when  you  had  not  been  even 
in  reach  of  the  enemy's  camp.  If  a  man,  sir,  reasoning 
upon  the  seasons  of  the  year,  should  undertake  to  prove 
that  it  must  be  winter  because  it  was  neither  spring  nor 
autumn,  his  argument  would  be  precisely  like  yours  for  an 
infallible  tribunal  of  faith.  His  hearers  might  well  ask 
why  it  might  not  be  summer;  and  your  readers  may  well  ask 
why  this  fifth  supposition,  which  you  have  so  strangely  sup- 
pressed when  it  must  have  been  under  your  eyes,  may  not 
be,  after  all  your  elaborate  discussion,  the  true  method  of 
God.  In  this  ancient  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  God  there 
may  be  an  escape  from  your  fatal  dilemma,  and  men  may 
find  a  sure  and  infallible  passage  to  heaven  without  mak- 
ing a  journey  to  Rome  to  be  guided  in  the  way.  Upon 
your  principles  of  reasoning  dilemmas  are  easily  made,  but 
very  fortunately  they  are  just  as  easily  avoided.  Their 
horns,  weak  and  powerless  as  a  Papal  bull's,  cannot  gore  the 
stubborn  and  refractory.  He  who  should  infer  that  a  sick 
man  must  be  scorching  with  fever  because  he  is  not  aching 
in  all  his  bones  with  a  shivering  ague,  would,  in  this  pitiful 
foolery,  present  a  forcible  example  of  the  sort  of  sophism  in 
which  you  have  boasted  as  triumphant  argument. 

discussed  in  Calvin's  Institutes,  Owen  on  the  Reason  of  Faith  and  his  kin- 
dred treatise,  and  Halyhurton's  inimitable  essay  on  the  Nature  of  Faith. 
Some  valuable  hints  may  also  be  found  in  Lancaster's  Bampton  Lectures, 
Jackson  on  the  Creed,  and  Chalmers'  Evidences.  I  cannot  forbear,  how- 
ever, to  advert  to  the  two  beautiful  illustrations  of  the  power  of  the  Scrip- 
tures to  authenticate  themselves,  which  Justin  Martyr  and  Francis  Junius 
have  given  us  in  their  accounts  of  their  own  conversion. 
Vol.  III.— 29 


450    ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA  .  DISCUSSED.  [LETTER  HI. 

2.  Your  reasoning  is  not  only  radically  defective  in  con- 
sequence of  an  imperfect  enumeration  of  particulars,  but 
fatally  unsuccessful  in  establishing  the  impossibility  of  those 
which  you  have  actually  undertaken  to  refute.  The  minor 
premiss  is  as  lame  as  the  major,  and  your  argument  at  best 
can  yield  us  nothing  but  a  "  lame  and  impotent  conclusion." 
Your  fourth  method  derives  its  claims  to  our  confidence  and 
regard  from  the  pretended  fact  that  all  other  schemes  are 
neither  "  practicable  nor  efficient."  Unless,  therefore,  this  can 
be  made  clearly  to  appear,  your  reasoning  must  fall  to  the 
ground.  Have  you  proved  it?  So  far  from  it,  the  objec- 
tions which  you  have  adduced  against  your  first  three 
methods  apply  just  as  powerfully  to  the  fourth,  and  prove, 
if  they  prove  anything,  that  neither  one  of  the  methods 
specified  by  you  can  possibly  be  the  truth.  The  arguments, 
for  instance,  which  you  have  employed  to  overthrow  the 
Protestant  theory  of  private  judgment,  as  implying  the 
responsibility  of  men  for  their  opinions,  and  a  consequent 
exemption  from  all  human  authority,  may  be  employed  with 
equal  success  to  demolish  the  pretensions  of  an  infallible 
tribunal,  or  to  show  that  such  a  body  can  neither  be  "  prac- 
ticable nor  efficient." 

AVhy  then  is  private  judgment  inadmissible?  Why  is 
it  that  each  man  is  not  at  liberty  to  examine  for  himself, 
and  form  his  own  opinions  upon  those  solemn  subjects  in 
which  his  own  individual  happiness  is  so  deeply  concerned? 
Because,  according  to  you,  unless  a  man  could  speak  with 
the  tongues  of  men  and  angels,  unless  he  comprehended  all 
mysteries  and  all  knowledge,  unless,  in  other  words,  his 
mind  was  a  living  encyclopaedia  of  science,  he  must  be  in- 
capable of  estimating  properly  the  historical  and  internal 
evidences  of  the  Divine  original  of  the  Scriptures.  Like 
the  Jewish  Cabalists,  you  have  rendered  the  judgments  of 
the  people  utterly  worthless  to  them  in  that  matter  which, 
of  all  others,  is  most  important  to  their  happiness.  i\Iaimou- 
ides^  goes  a  little  beyond  you.  He  not  oidy  makes  Logic, 
^  More  Neboclum,  pars  i.,  c.  34. 


Letter  III.]  ARGUMENT    FOR   AX   INFALLIBLE   BODY.      451 

Mathematics  and  Xatural  Philosophy  indispensable  to  our 
progress  in  Divine  knowledge,  but  absolutely  necessary  in 
order  to  settle  the  foundation  of  religion  in  the  being  and 
attributes  of  God;  and  according  to  him,  those  who  are 
unfurnished  with  these  scientific  accomplishments  must  either 
settle  down  into  dreary  Atheism,  or  make  up  their  deficien- 
cies by  submitting  implicitly  to  cabalistical  instruction ! 
You,  I  presume,  would  grant  that  a  man  could  be  assured 
of  the  existence  of  the  Deity  without  an  intimate  acquaint- 
ance with  Latin,  Greek,  Hebrew,  Syriac,  Chaldee,  and  diyers 
modern  tongues,  or  without  being  master  of  Mathematics, 
Chemistry,  Geology,  Natural  History  and  Physics.  These 
things,  on  your  scheme,  are  only  necessary  to  settle  the  in- 
spiration of  the  Scriptures. 

Let  us  grant,  for  a  moment,  that  all  this  immense  appa- 
ratus of  learning  is  necessary  to  settle  a  plain,  simple,  his- 
torical fact;  what  becomes  of  the  skill  and  competency  of 
your  infallible  body?  If  it  is  to  decide  according  to  the 
evidence,  and  all  these  boundless  attainments  are  absolutely 
requisite  in  order  to  a  just  appreciation  of  the  evidence, 
every  individual  member  of  your  unerring  corps  must  be 
deeply  versed  in  all  human  lore,  as  -^^ell  as  blessed  with  an 
"almost  supernatural  accuracy  of  judgment,"  before  the 
body  can  be  qualified,  according  to  your  statements,  to  make 
an  infallible  decision.  Suppose,  sir,  Europe  and  America 
were  ransacked,  how  many  individuals  could  be  found,  each 
of  whom  should  possess  the  varied  and  extensive  attain- 
ments which  you  make  indispensable  in  settling  a  plain 
question  of  fact  connected  with  the  events  of  an  earlier  age? 
How  many  of  the  pastors  of  the  Church  of  Rome  would 
be  entitled  to  a  seat  in  a  General  Council  composed  only 
of  those  who  could  abide  your  test  of  competency  to  decide 
on  matters  of  faith?  Certain  it  is  that  there  was  not  a 
single  individual  in  the  whole  Council  of  Trent  who  pos- 
sessed even  a  tithe  of  the  learning  without  which,  in  your 
view,  an  accurate  decision  is  hopeless.  As  we  have  already 
seen,  those  holy  Fathers  seemed  to  be  fully  persuaded  that 


452    AKGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Letter  III. 

"  Hebrew  roots  were  only  found 
To  flourish  best  in  barren  ground." 

Their  skill  in  Samaritan,  Coptic,  Arabic  and  Syric  versions 
may  be  readily  conjectured  from  their  profound  acquaint- 
ance with  the  original  text.  If  they  were  deeply  versed 
in  the  mysteries  of  Chemistry  and  Geology,  they  must  have 
been  endowed  with  an  extraordinary  prolepsis  which  has 
no  parallel  in  the  recorded  history  of  man.  How,  then, 
could  these  venerable  men  decide  with  "absolute  certainty" 
when  all  the  evidence  in  the  case  was  high  above,  out  of 
their  reach  ?  You  tell  us,  sir,  that  they  made  their  decision 
"after  patient  examination  and  a  thorough  investigation 
of  all  the  evidence  they  could  find  on  the  subject."  But 
yet,  upon  your  own  showing,  the  historical  and  internal 
proofs  of  inspiration  were  inaccessible  not  only  to  the  pre- 
lates themselves,  but  to  the  whole  rabble  of  divines  who 
assisted  them  in  their  deliberations.  How  does  it  happen, 
then,  that  their  decision  is  entitled  to  be  received  with 
absolute  certainty?  But  perhaps  you  will  say  that  the 
Fathers  possessed  some  other  evidence — that  they  them- 
selves were  supernaturally  inspired,  or  irresistibly  guided 
by  God's  grace  to  make  an  unerring  decision?  To  say 
nothing  of  the  fact  that  your  argument,  in  order  to  be  con- 
clusive, requires  you  to  show  that  the  same  supernatural 
assistance  cannot  be  vouchsafed  to  individuals  as  well  as  to 
a  body,  I  would  simply  ask,  Hoto  could  the  Fathers  know 
that  they  were  inspired?  You  have  made  all  human  knoio- 
ledge  a  necessary  means  of  judging  of  inspiration.  A  man 
must  be  able  "to  refute  all  the  objections  brought  from 
these  different  sources  against  the  intrinsic  truth,  and,  con- 
sequently, internal  evidence  of  the  Di\ane  inspiration,  of 
the  Scriptures."  If,  then,  a  man  cannot  be  satisfied  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  until  he  is  able  to  perceive 
the  intrinsic  truth  of  their  teachings — that  is,  until  he  can 
show  that  scientific  objections  are  really  groundless — how 
can  he  be  satisfied  of  his  own  inspiration  until  he  can,  in 
like  manner,  determine  tliat  the  propositions  suggested  to 


Letter  III.]  ARGUMENT   FOR   AN   INFALLIBLE   BODY.      453 

liim  are  not  contradictory  to  any  truth  received  or  taught 
in  the  wide  circle  of  human  science?  And  how,  I  beseech 
you,  can  the  people  be  assured  tliat  any  body  of  men  has 
been  supernaturally  guided,  until  they  are  able  to  refute  all 
the  objections  from  all  the  departments  of  human  know- 
ledge to  the  decrees  of  the  body?  Will  you  say  that  inspi- 
ration, once  settled,  answers  all  objections?  Very  true. 
But  how  is  the  inspiration  to  be  settled?  You  say  that 
an  individual  cannot  judge  of  inspiration  until  he  is  able 
to  refute  all  objections  and  to  defend  the  truths  that  profess 
to  be  inspired.  No  more,  I  apprehend,  can  a  body  of  in- 
dividuals. But  a  body  of  individuals  may  be  inspired  to 
judge  of  the  inspiration  of  others.  But  how  are  they  to 
determine  their  own  inspiration  ?  They  must  still  be  able  to 
refute  all  possible  objections,  and  perceive  the  intrinsic 
truth  of  what  they  are  taught,  themselves,  or  their  own 
inspiration  is  uncertain ;  and  the  people  need  it  just  as  much 
to  judge  of  the  inspiration  of  a  council  as  of  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures.  So  that  your  circle  of  science  becomes 
necessary  sooner  or  later  for  a  body  of  men,  if  it  be  necessary 
for  a  private  individual. 

You  perceive,  then,  that  your  argument  against  the 
rights  of  the  people  may  be  turned  with  a  desolating  edge 
against  yourself.  Like  an  unnatural  mother,  it  devours  its 
own  conclusion.  If,  sir,  the  infallibility  of  a  body  depends 
upon  the  illumination  of  God's  Spirit,  it  will  be  hard  to 
show  why  God  can  supernaturally  enlighten  every  man  in 
a  special  assembly,  and  yet  be  unable  to  enlighten  private 
individuals  in  their  separate  capacity.  How  the  mere  fact 
of  human  congregation,  under  any  circumstances,  can  confer 
additional  power  upon  God's  Holy  Spirit  you  have  nowhere 
explained,  and  I  think  that  you  will  hardly  undertake  the 
task. 

Upon  your  own  showing,  then,  your  triumj^hant  argu- 
ment is  a  beggarly  sophism.  Your  objections  to  private 
judgment  prove  too  much,  and  therefore  prove  nothing. 
Whatever  is  simply  necessary  to  establish  inspiration  applies 


454    ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [LETTER  III. 

as  much  to  the  inspiration  of  Trent  as  to  the  inspiration 
of  Davidj  Isaiah  and  Paul.  As  I  am  now  exclusively 
engaged  in  the  examination  of  your  argument,  I  shall  not 
turn  aside  from  my  purpose  to  indicate  the  manner  in 
which  a  plain,  unlettered  man  can  become  morally  certain, 
from  the  historical  and  collateral  evidences  of  inspiration, 
that  the  authors  of  the  Bible  wrote  as  they  were  moved  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Your  long,  involved  and  intricate  ac- 
count of  the  learning  and  attainments  required  for  this  end 
could  easily  be  shoM'n,  and  has  been  triumphantly  shown, 
to  be  a  mere  phantom  of  the  brain.  You  are  fond,  sir,  of 
raising  imaginary  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  humble 
inquirer  after  the  truth,  in  order  that  you  may  find  a  ready 
market  for  the  wares  of  Rome.  But  in  this  instance  your 
own  feet  have  been  caught  in  the  pit  which  your  hands 
have  dug.  When  you  condescend  to  inform  me  how  the 
Fathers  of  Trent  could  decide  with  infallible  certainty 
upon  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  without  the  learning 
which  is  necessary,  in  your  view,  to  understand  the  evi- 
dence, if  they  themselves  were  uninspired;  or  how,  if  in- 
spired, they  could,  without  this  learning,  either  be  certain 
themselves  of  the  fact  or  establish  it  with  infallible  cer- 
tainty to  the  mass  of  the  people,  who,  without  your  learn- 
ing, must  judge  of  the  inspiration  of  the  holy  Council, — 
when  consistently  with  your  principles  you  resolve  these 
difficulties,  one  of  the  objections  to  your  argument  will 
cease.  Until  then  it  must  continue  to  be  a  striking  example 
of  that  sort  of  paralogism  by  which  the  same  premises  prove 
and  disprove  at  the  same  time. 

3.  But,  sir,  the  chapter  of  your  misfortunes  is  not  yet 
closed.  Your  favourite,  triumphant,  oft-repeated  argument 
not  only  labours  under  the  two  serious  and  fatal  defects 
which  have  already  been  illustrated,  but,  what  is  just  as 
bad,  even  upon  the  supposition  that  it  is  logically  sound,  it 
fails  to  answer  your  purpose.  It  does  not  yield  you  what 
your  cause  requires — an  infallible  conclusion.  At  its  best 
estate  it  is  a  broken  reed,  which  can  only  pierce  the  bosom 


Letter  III.]  ARGUMENT   FOR   AN    INFALLIBLE    BODY.      455 

of  him  that  leaus  on  it.  You  infer  that  a  certain  plan  must 
be  the  true  one  because  all  others  are  false.  It  is  evident 
that  it  must  be  absolutely  certain  that  the  others  are  false, 
before  it  can  be  absolutely  certain  that  the  one  insisted  on 
is  true.  The  degree  of  certainty  Avhich  attaches  to  any 
hypothesis  drawn  from  the  destruction  of  all  other  supposi- 
tions is  just  the  degree  of  certainty  with  which  the  others 
have  been  removed.  The  measure  of  their  falsehood  is  the 
measure  of  its  truth.  If  there  be  any  probability  in  them, 
that  probability  amounts  to  a  positive  argument  against  the 
conclusion  erected  on  their  ruins. 

Now,  sir,  upon  the  gratuitous  assumption  that  your  argu- 
ment is  legitimate  and  regular,  your  conclusion  cannot  be 
infallible  unless  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  the  three 
methods  of  determining  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures 
which  you  have  pronounced  to  be  neither  "  practicable  nor 
efficient"  are  grossly  and  palpably  absurd.  They  must  be 
unquestionably  false  or  your  conclusion  cannot  be  unquestion- 
ably true.  If  there  be  the  least  degree  of  probability  in 
favour  of  any  one  of  these  schemes,  that  probability,  how- 
ever slight,  is  fatal  to  the  infallible  certainty  required  by 
your  cause.  Your  conclusion,  in  such  a  case,  can  only  re- 
sult from  a  comparison  of  opposing  probabilities;  it  can 
only  have  a  preponderance  of  evidence,  and  therefore  can 
only  be  probable  at  best. 

I  venture  to  assert,  upon  the  approved  principles  of  Papal 
casuistry,  that  two,  most  certainly,  of  your  condemned  sup- 
positions are  just  as  likely  to  be  true,  or  can  at  least  be  as 
harmlessly  adopted,  as  that  which  you  have  taken  into 
favour.  We  are  told  by  your  doctors  that  a  probable 
opinion  may  be  safely  followed,  and  their  standard  of  prob- 
ability is  the  approbation  of  a  doctor  or  the  example  of  the 
good — "  SuJJicit  opjinio  alicujus  gravis  doctoris,  aut  bonoi'um 
exemplum." 

Try  your  third  supposition  by  this  standard,  and  does  it 
not  become  exceedingly  probable?  Why  have  you  passed 
it  over  with  so  vague,  superficial  and  unsatisfactory  a  notice? 


456   AEGUMENTS   FOR  APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [LETTER  III. 

Were  you  afraid  that  there  was  death  in  the  pot?  You 
surely,  sir,  cannot  be  ignorant  that  scores  of  your  leading 
divines  have  boldly  maintained  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope 
— a  single  individual  whom  they  have  regarded  as  divinely 
commissioned  to  instruct  the  faithful.  The  Council  of 
Florence  decided  that  the  Pope  was  primate  of  the  Univer- 
sal Church;  that  he  is  the  true  Lieutenant  of  Christ — the 
father  and  teacher  of  all  Christians;  and  that  unto  \\\m  full 
power  is  committed  to  feed,  direct  and  govern  the  Catholic 
Church  under  Christ.  He,  then,  it  would  seem,  is  the  very 
individual  to  whom  that  Council  would  refer  us  for  satis- 
factory information  concerning  the  Canon  of  Scripture  and 
every  other  point  of  faith.  The  prelates  of  the  Lateran 
Council  under  Leo  X.  oiFered  the  most  fulsome  and  disgust- 
ing flatteries  to  that  skeptical  Pontiff,  calling  him  King  of 
hings  and  Monarch  of  the  earth,  and  ascribing  to  him  all 
power,  above  all  powers  of  heaven  and  earth.  The  Legates 
of  Trent  would  not  permit  the  question  of  the  Pope's 
authority  to  be  discussed,  because  the  Pontiff  himself, 
while  he  was  yet  ignorant  of  the  temper  of  the  Fathers, 
was  secretly  afraid  that  they  might  follow  the  examples  of 
Constance  and  Basil.  Pighius,  Gretser,  Bellarmine  and 
Gregory  of  Valentia  have  ascribed  infallibility  to  the  head 
of  your  Church  in  the  most  explicit  and  unmeasured  terms.^ 

1  Gregory  of  Valentia  carried  the  doctrine  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope 
so  far  as  to  maintain  that  his  decisions  were  unerring,  whether  made  with 
care  and  attention  or  not.     His  words  are  : 

"Sive  Pontifex,  in  definiendo  studium  adhibeat,  sive  non  adhibeat ; 
modo  tamen  controversiam  definiat,  infallibiliter  certe  definiet,  atqiie  adeo 
re  ipsa  utitur  authoritate  sibi  a  Christo  concessa." — Analys.  Fid.,  Qu.  6. 

Augustinus  Triumphus  observes:  "Novum  symbolum  condere  solum  ad 
Papam  spectat,  quia  est  caput  fidei  Christianae,  cujus  auctoritate  omnia 
quae  ad  fidem  apectant  firmantur  et  roborantur." — Qu.  59,  Art.  1. 

This  same  writer,  treating  of  ecclesiastical  power,  observes  again: 
"  Error  est  non  credere  Pontificem  Eomanum  universalis  Ecclesiae  pas- 
torem,  Petri  successorem,  et  Christi  Vicarium,  supra  temporalia  et  spiri- 
tualia  universalem  non  habere  primatum,  in  quem,  quandoque  multi  la- 
buntur,  dictse  potestatis  ignorantiae,  quae  cum  sit  infinita  eo  (juod  magnus 
est  doniinus  et  magna  virtus  ejus  et  magnitudinis  ejus  non  est  finis,  oranis 
creatusintellectusinejusperscrutationeinveniturdeficere." — Prcef.  P.,  John 


Letter  III.]  ARGUMENT    FOR    AN    INFALLIBLE    BODY.       457 

It  is  generally  understood,  too,  that  this  doctrine  is  main- 
tained by  the  whole  body  of  the  Jesuits.  To  my  mind, 
wicked  and  blasphemous  as  it  is,  this  is  a  less  exceptionable 
doctrine  than  that  which  you  have  defended.  A  single  in- 
dividual can  be  more  easily  reached,  more  prompt  in  his 
decisions,  and  is  always  ready  to  answer  the  calls  of  the 
faithful.  To  collect  a  Council  is  a  slow  and  tedious  process, 
and  the  infallibility  slumbers  while  the  Council  is  dissolved. 
The  infallibility  of  a  single  individual,  which  is  your 
third  hypothesis,  is  'probable  upon  the  well-known  principles 
of  your  most  distinguished  casuists.  You  ought  to  have 
shown,  therefore,  that  this  opinion  is  palpably  absurd. 
Write  a  book  upon  this  subject  and  send  it  to  Rome,  and  it 
may  possibly  lead  to  your  promotion  in  the  Church.  How- 
ever, let  Gregory  XYI.  be  first  gathered  to  his  fathers,  as 
he  might  not  brook  so  flat  a  contradiction  to  his  own  pub- 
lished opinions.^  I  am  inclined  to  think  that,  to  the  major- 
xxii.  But  the  climax  of  absurdity  and  blasphemy  is  fairly  reached  in  the 
following  passage  from  Bellarmine,  De  Rom.  Pont.,  Lib.  iv.,  cap.  v.:  "Si 
autem  Papa  erraret  pr?ecipiendo  vitia,  vel  proliibendo  virtutes,  teneretur 
Ecclesia  credere  vitia  esse  bona  et  virtutes  malas,  nisi  vellet  contra  consci- 
entiam  peccare." 

Scores  of  passages  to  the  like  effect  may  be  collected  from  the  writings 
of  the  Popes  themselves. 

1  I  have  before  me  the  French  translation  of  a  book  written  by  the 
present  Pontiff  when  he  was  Cardinal  Maur  Cappellari,  entitled  the 
Triumph  of  the  Holy  See  and  of  the  Church,  in  which  the  dogma  of  the 
Pope's  infallibility  is  fully  and  curiously  discussed.  His  Holiness  re- 
pudiates with  horror  the  Galilean  doctrine  of  the  superiority  of  Councils, 
and  stoutly  maintains  that  the  Government  of  the  Church  is  an  absolute 
monarchy,  of  which  the  Pontiff  is  the  infallible  head.  It  is  a  little  sin- 
gular that  A.  P.  F.  should  dismiss  with  contempt,  as  unworthy  of  discus- 
sion, the  precise  opinions  which  his  master  at  Rome  holds  to  be  essential 
to  the  stability  of  the  faith ;  and  whether  the  real  doctrine  of  the  Papacy 
is  more  likely  to  be  gathered  from  an  obscure  priest  or  from  the  supreme 
Father  of  the  faithful,  I  leave  it  to  the  reader  to  determine.  As  a  speci- 
men of  the  Pope's  book  I  give  two  extracts  at  random,  as  they  may  be 
found  in  the  French  version  of  Abbe  Jammes : 

"Le  Pape,  ainsi  qu'il  a  et6  prouv^,  est  un  vrai  monarque;  done  il  doit 
€tre  pourvu  des  moyens  necessaires  a  I'exercice  de  son  autorite  monar- 
chique.  Mais  le  moyen  le  plus  necessaire  a  cette  fin  sera  celui  qui  otera 
tout  pretexte  a  ses  sujets  de  refuser  de  se  soumettre  a  ses  decisions  et  a  sea 


458   ARGUMENTS   FOR  APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Letter  III, 

ity  of  Papal  minds,  there  is  so  much  probability  iu  this 
third  opinion  that  if  your  letter  had  been  written  by  a 
Jesuit  at  Rome  it  would  in  fact  have  been  made  the  infallible 
conclusion.     Certain  it  is  that  you  have  not  offered  a  single 

lois,  et  son  infaillibilite  seule  peut  avoir  cette  efficacite.  Done  le  Pape  est 
infaillible:'— Prelim.  Dis.,  vol.  i.,  p.  174,  §  82. 

"  Quoique,  apres  tout  ce  qui  ete  dit  jusqu'  a  present,  il  ne  dut  pas  6tre 
n^cessaire  de  rien  aj  outer  d' a  vantage,  je  chercherai  encore  a  les  tirer  de 
leurs  erreurs  par  des  argumens  plus  pressans.  Parmi  toutes  les  soci^tes, 
celle-la  seule  est  infaillible,  qui  constitue  la  veritable  Eglise;  c'est  de 
foi :  mais  il  n'y  a  pas  de  veritable  Eglise  sans  Pierre ;  nous  I'avons  de- 
montre :  done  I'infaillibilite  appartient  exclusivement  a  la  societe  qui  est 
unie  a  Pierre  et*,  ses  successeurs.  Or  cette  union  avec  Pierre  ou  avec  le 
Pape  ne  serait  pas  une  note  suffisante  pour  distinguer  entre  plusieurs 
soci^tes  celle  qui  serait  infaillible,  si  cette  union  ne  contribuait  en  quelque 
maniere  par  son  concours  a  faire  jouir  cette  societe  du  privilege  de  I'in- 
faillibilite  ;  done  elle  doit  reellement  y  contribuer  et  y  coneourir.  Mais 
I'Eglise  doit  avoir,  dans  ses  definitions,  une  infaillibilite  perpetuelle  et 
durable  jusqu'  a  la  fin  des  siecles ;  done  le  meme  perpetuite,  la  m^me 
duree  jusqu'  a  la  fin  des  siecles  doit  etre  assuree  an  concours  de  cette  union 
de  I'Eglise  avec  le  Pape,  laquelle  est  attacliee  a  I'infaillibilite  de  I'Eglise 
elle-meme.  IVou  il  s'ensuit  que,  dans  le  cas  d'un  point  quelconque  a 
d^finir,  il  sera  aussi  vrai  de  dire,  avant  meme  qu'il  ait  lieu,  que  ce  con- 
cours positif  et  explicite  ne  manquera  pas,  qu'il  est  vrai  de  dire  que 
I'Eglise  est  infaillible  dans  la  decision  qu'elle  portera,  et  qu'elle  ne  tom- 
bera  pas  dans  I'erreur.  Mais,  s'  il  est  certain  que,  toutes  les  foLs  qu'il 
s'agira  de  definir  un  point  de  foi,  on  pourra  compter  sur  le  concours  de 
I'union  de  I'Eglise  avec  le  Pape,  il  doit  6tre  egalement  certain  que  Dieu 
ne  permettra  jamais  que  le  Pape  ne  donne  pas  son  assentiment  a  des  veri- 
tes  de  foi,  puisque,  sans  cet  assentiment,  il  ne  saurait,  y  avoir  de  veritable 
definition  de  I'Eglise.  Done,  si  ce  concours  doit  etre  continuel  et  per- 
p^tuel,  Dieu  devra  continuellement  et  perpetuellement  incliner  le  Paj^e  a 
donner  son  assentiment  aux  verites  de  fois ;  et  il  ne  permettra  jamais  que 
le  Pape,  comme  tel,  s'eloigne  de  la  vraie  croyance.  En  efiet,  s'il  n'en 
etait  pas  ainsi,  et  que  Dieu  put  permettre  que  le  Pape,  en  cette  quality, 
abandonnat  la  verite,  il  pourrait  arriver  que,  par  sa  primaut^  dans  I'Eglise, 
et  par  le  droit  qu'il  a,  poiir  le  maintien  de  I'unite,  comme  dit  saint 
Thomas,  de  projioser  le  point  de  foi,  il  entrainat  I'Eglise  avec  lui  dans 
I'erreur.  Done  Dieu  a  dA  accorder  au  Pape,  comme  tel,  le  privilege 
d'une  infaillibilite  ind^pendante  de  I'Eglise,  independantc  de  cette  so- 
ciety, a  I'infaillibilite  de  laquelle  il  contribue  et  concourt  par  le  moyen  de 
I'union  de  celle-ci  avec  lui.  Les  novateurs  ne  puevent  rejeter  cette  con- 
sequence sans  nier  la  n^cessitd  du  concours  du  Pape ;  et  s'ils  la  nient,  ils 
86  rangent  parmi  les  sehismatiques  et  les  protestans,  qui  se  font  une  lilglise 
eeparge  du  Pape." — Vol.  i.,  e.  ii.,  pp.  206-208. 


Letter  III.]  ARGUMENT   FOR   AN   INFALLIBLE   BODY.      459 

argument  against  it.  You  play  off  upon  Esdras  and  the 
Jewish  Sanhedrim,  and  sundry  questions  which  "more 
veteran  schohirs  than  you"  have  found  it  hard  to  decide, 
and  then  conchide  with  inimitable  self-complacency  that 
the  "third  method  cannot  be  admitted."^  Sir,  when  you 
write  again  let  me  beseech  you  to  write  in  syllogisms.  If 
you  have  disproved  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  I  cannot 
find  your  premises;  and  yet,  unless  you  have  done  it,  your 
triumphant  conclusion  is  a  mere  petitio  principii.  Your 
own  doctors  will  rise  up  against  you  if  you  undertake  this 
task ;  you  are  self-condemned  if  you  do  not. 

Then  again,  your  first  hypothesis — the  theory  of  private 
judgment — must  have  some  little  probability  in  its  favour, 
or  such  mighty  minds  as  those  of  Newton,  Bacon,  Locke 
and  Chillingworth  would  not  have  adopted  it  with  so  much 
cordiality,  nor  would  such  multitudes  of  the  race  have 
sealed  their  regard  for  it  at  the  stake,  the  gibbet  and  the 
wheel.  A  principle  confessedly  the  keystone  that  supports 
the  arch  of  religious  liberty,  which  emancipates  the  human 
mind  from  ghostly  tyranny  and  calls  upon  the  nations 
to  behold  their  God,  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the 
glorious  fabric  of  American  freedom  and  distinguishes  the 
Constitutions  of  all  our  States,  is  not  to  be  dismissed  with- 
out examination  as  grossly  false  or  palpably  absurd.  The 
conditions  which  you  have  prescribed  for  its  exercise  are 
not  only  arbitrary  and  capable  of  being  turned  to  capital 
advantage  against  you,  but,  as  I  shall  show  when  I  come  to 
the  examination  of  your  second  argument,  they  have  been 
virtually  withdrawn  by  yourself.  You  have  actually  ad- 
mitted, sir,  all  that  the  friends  of  private  judgment  deem 
to  be  important  in  the  case.  According  to  your  own  state- 
ment, the  ignorant  and  unlearned  may  be  assured,  upon 
sufficient  grounds,  of  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  This  foundation  being 
laid,  inspiration  will  naturally  follow.     So  that,  notwith- 

^  Note  by  Editor. — It  is  understood  that  Bishop  Lynch,  since  the  late 
Council  of  the  Vatican,  is  no  longer  unable  to  admit  "the  third  method." 


460  ARGUMENTS   FOR  APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Letter  IV. 

standing  all  your  objections,  private  judgment  remains 
unaifected  in  the  strength  and  glory  of  its  intrinsic  prob- 
ability. 

How,  then,  upon  a  just  estimate  of  its  merits,  stands  your 
boasted  argument?  Why,  there  are  only  four  suppositious 
that  can  be  made  in  the  case.  The  first  and  third  of  these 
are  so  extremely  'probable  that  millions  of  the  human  race 
have  believed  them  to  be  true.  Therefore  the  fourth  must 
be  infallibly  certain  !  AVeighed  in  the  balances  of  logical 
propriety,  the  infallible  certainty  of  your  conclusion  turns 
out  to  be  like  Berkeley's  "vanishing  ghosts  of  departed 
quantities." 


LETTER    IV. 

HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 


We  owe  it  to  the  goodness  of  God  that  the  most  corrupt 
and  dangerous  principles  are  not  unfrequently  combined  in 
the  same  person  with  a  confusion  of  understanding  which 
effectually  destroys  their  capacity  of  mischief  and  renders 
the  triumph  of  truth  more  illustrious  and  complete.  Error, 
in  fact,  is  so  multiform  and  various,  so  heterogeneous  in  its 
parts  and  mutually  repulsive  in  its  elements,  that  it  requires 
a  mind  of  extraordinary  power  to  construct  a  fabric  of  such 
discordant  materials  having  even  the  appearance  of  regu- 
larity and  order.  Truth,  on  the  other  hand,  is  simple  and 
uniform.  Her  body,  like  that  of  the  beautiful  Osiris,  is 
composed  of  homogeneous  and  well-adjusted  parts;  and  as, 
in  the  progress  of  discovery  or  the  light  of  patient  investi- 
gation, limb  is  added  to  limb,  and  member  to  member,  the 
mind  perceives  in  the  harmony  of  the  proportions  and  the 
exquisite  symmetry  of  the  form  a  mysterious  charm  which, 
like  the  magic  of  musical  enchantment,  chains  its  sympathies 
and  captivates  its  powers.     The  fascinations  of  falsehood 


Letter  IV.]  HISTORICAL   ARGUMENT.  461 

are  essentially  distinguished  from  the  "  divine,  enchanting 
ravishment"  of  truth  by  their  peculiar  effects  upon  the 
health  and  vigour  of  the  soul.  Whatever  pleasure  they 
administer  is  like  the  profound  slumber  produced  by  power- 
ful drugs  or  stupefying  potions,  in  which  the  joys  that  are 
ex^jerienced  are  the  unnatural  results  of  a  temporary  de- 
lirium, or,  as  Milton  expresses  it,  of  that  "sweet  madness" 
in  which  the  soul  is  robbed  of  its  energies  and  rendered 
impotent  for  future  exertion;  but  "the  sober  certainty  of 
waking  bliss,  a  sacred  and  homefelt  delight,"  a  manly  and 
solid  satisfaction  which  at  once  refreshes  and  invigorates 
the  mind,  belongs  exclusively  to  the  province  of  truth. 
Hence  philosophy,  which  is  only  another  name  for  the  love 
of  truth,  was  warmly  commended  among  the  ancient  sages 
as  the  health  and  medicine  of  the  soul,  the  choicest  gift  of 
heaven  and  the  richest  jewel  of  earth.  Falsehood,  how- 
ever it  may  exhilarate,  always  confounds,  and  the  stimulus, 
however  powerful,  which  it  may  impart  to  the  faculties  of 
the  mind,  can  produce  nothing  more  substantial  or  real  than 
the  vain  phantoms  of  a  sick  man's  dream.  Hence,  defences 
of  error  are  almost  always  inconsistent  with  themselves, 
and  the  advocate  of  truth  has  often  no  harder  task  than  to 
place  the  different  statements  of  the  sophist  or  deceiver  in 
immediate  juxtaposition,  and  leave  them,  in  their  war  of 
contradictions,  to  demolish  the  system  which  their  master 
had  laboriously  toiled  to  erect.  The  most  finished  produc- 
tions of  superstition,  infidelity  and  Atheism,  when  resolved 
into  their  constituent  parts,  are  found  to  be  wanting  in  that 
beautiful  consistency  which  springs  from  the  bosom  of  God, 
and  whfch  is  written,  as  if  by  the  finger  of  Heaven,  upon 
every  system  of  truth. 

Without  intending  to  degrade  your  understanding,  you 
must  permit  me  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  different 
portions  of  your  own  compositions  are  "  like  two  prevaricating 
witnesses,  who  flatly  contradict  each  other,  though  neither  of 
them  speaks  the  truth."  This  confusion  of  ideas  is  perhaps 
to  be  attributed  to  the  nature  of  the  cause  which,  with  more 


462   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA  DISCUSSED.  [Letter  IV. 

zeal  than  prudence,  you  undertook  to  defend.  Consistency 
cannot  be  expected  from  the  advocates  of  a  black  and  bloody 
superstition  which  sprang  from  the  father  of  lies,  whose 
appropriate  element  is  darkness,  and  whose  legitimate  effect 
upon  the  life  is  to  form  a  character  homogeneous  in  nothing 
but  implacable  enmity  to  God.  "VVe  are  not  to  be  astonished, 
therefore,  to  find  that  your  elaborate  defence  of  the  infalli- 
bility of  a  body  which  solemnly  sanctioned  one  of  the 
most  deliberate  and  atrocious  frauds^  that  ever  disgraced 
the  annals  of  mankind  should  be  so  awkwardly  adjusted  in 
its  parts  as  to  resemble  nothing  more  distinctly  than  the 
monstrous  picture  with  which  Horace  opens  his  epistle  to 
the  Pisos.  They  who  receive  not  the  truth  in  the  love  of 
it  are  smitten  with  such  madness,  blindness  and  astonish- 
ment of  heart  as  to  grope  at  noonday,  even  as  the  blind 

^  "When  John  Huss,  the  Bohemian  Eeformer,  was  arrested,  cast  into 
prison  and  publicly  burnt  alive  at  Constance,  in  spite  of  a  "safe-conduct" 
given,  him  by  the  Emperor  Sigismund,  merely  because  he  refused  to  belie 
his  conscience  by  abjuring  his  pretended  heresy,  all  was  executed  under 
the  eyes  and  by  the  express  authority  of  the  Council,  who  solemnly  de- 
creed that  the  safe-conduct  of  the  Emperor  ought  to  be  considered  as  no 
impediment  to  the  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  but  that,  not- 
withstanding, it  was  perfectly  competent  for  the  ecclesiastical  judge  to 
take  cognizance  of  his  errors  and  to  punish  them  agreeably  to  the  dictates 
of  justice,  although  he  presented  himself  before  them  in  dependence  upon 
that  protection  but  for  which  he  would  have  declined  appearing.  Nor 
were  they  satisfied  with  this  impious  decision  alone.  Because  murmurs 
were  heard  on  account  of  the  violation  of  a  legal  protection,  they  had  the 
audacity  to  add,  that  since  the  .said  John  Huss  had,  by  impugning  the 
orthodox  faith,  forfeited  every  privilege,  and  since  no  promise  or  faith 
was  binding,  either  by  human  or  divine  right,  in  prejudice  of  the  Catholic 
faith,  the  said  empei'or  had  done  as  became  his  royal  majesty  in  violating 
his  safe-conduct,  and  that  whoever,  of  any  rank  or  sect,  dare%to  impugn 
the  justice  of  the  holy  Council  or  of  his  majesty,  in  relation  to  their  pro- 
ceedings with  John  Huss,  -shall  be  punished  without  hope  of  pardon  as  a 
favourer  of  heretical  pravity,  and  guilty  of  the  crime  of  high  treason." — 
Hall,  vol.  iv.,  p.  245.     See  L'Enfant's  Council  of  Constance,  vol.  ii.,  p.  491. 

The  third  Council  of  Lateran,  Canon  XVI.,  decreed  that  all  oaths  con- 
trary to  the  utility  of  the  Church  and  to  the  institutions  of  the  Fathers 
are  to  be  regarded  as  perjuries,  and  therefore  not  to  be  kept.  "Non  enim 
dicenda  sunt  jui'amenta,  sed  potius  pcrjuria,  quoe  contra  utilitatem  eccle- 
aiasticam  et  sanctorum  patrum  renitent  instituta." 


Letter  IV.]  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  463 

gropeth  in  darkness,  and  to  feel  for  the  wall  in  the  full  blaze 
of  the  meridian  sun.  The  blandishments  of  error,  like  the 
subtle  allurements  of  Samson's  wife,  may  rob  the  noblest 
genius  of  its  strength,  and  leave  it  in  the  midst  of  its 
enemies  dark,  dark,  irrecoverably  dark.  I  am  far  from 
contemplating  such  instances  of  mental  eclipse  with  feelings 
of  exultation  or  delight.  There  cannot  be  a  more  appalling 
spectacle  in  nature  than  a  mind  in  ruins;  and  in  the  right- 
eous severity  of  God,  which  visits  the  advocates  of  error  by 
sealing  up  the  intellectual  eyeball  in  impenetrable  night, 
we  may  learn  the  awful  majesty  of  truth  and  the  tremen- 
dous danger  of  trifling  with  the  light.  This  disastrous 
judgment  is  the  portentous  herald  of  a  deeper  woe.  It  is 
therefore  with  feelings  of  the  profoundest  pity,  and  with 
the  most  heartfelt  reciprocation  of  your  prayer  on  my  be- 
half, that  I  am  now  compelled  to  expose  that  tissue  of  in- 
consistencies, contradictions  and  unwarrantable  assumptions 
which  constitutes  your  second  argument;  and  if,  sir,  you 
shall  be  made  to  feel,  as  I  sincerely  trust  you  may,  that  you 
have  been  only  w^eaving  a  tangled  web  of  sophistry  and 
deceit,  you  should  take  a  salutary  warning,  and  before  you 
finally  stumble  on  the  dark  mountains  contemplate  the 
severity  of  God  in  them  that  fall. 

Your  object  is  to  exhibit  the  historical  grounds  for  believ- 
ing that  God  has  in  fact  established,  through  Jesus  Christ, 
a  commissioned  delegate  from  Heaven,  "  a  body  of  individ- 
uals to  whom  in  their  collective  capacity  He  has  given 
authority  to  make  an  unerring  decision"  on  the  subject  of 
the  Canon.  These  historical  proofs,  you  inform  us,  contain 
nothing  that  transcends  the  means  or  surpasses  the  under- 
standing even  of  an  Indian  or  a  negro.  Now,  what  are 
these  historical  proofs,  and"  whence  are  they  derived  ?  The 
recorded /acfe  of  the  New  Testament  received  on  the  authority 
of  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists !  You  appeal  to  "  certain 
histories  written  by  persons  who  lived  at  the  same  time  with 
the  Saviour,  and  were  for  years  in  daily  and  intimate  inter- 
course Avith  Hin],  and  the  accuracy  of  whose  reports  is  uni- 


464  ARGUMENTS  FOR  APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Letter  TV. 

versally  acknowledged  and  can  be  easily  substantiated."  In 
other  words,  the  genidneyiess  and  authenticity  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  are  matters  so  simple  and  plain  that 
there  is  nothing  in  the  evidence  "  above  or  contrary  to  the 
means  and  understanding  of  an  Indian  or  a  negro."  These 
books  contain  satisfactory  proof  of  the  miracles  of  Christ ; 
these  miracles  establish  His  Divine  commission,  and  conse- 
quently impart  Divine  authority  to  whatever  He  enjoined  ] 
and  as  a  body  of  infallible  teachers  to  be  perpetuated  to  the 
end  of  time  was  His  provision  for  preserving  His  truth 
pure  in  the  world,  that  arrangement  unquestionably  pos- 
sessed the  sanction  of  God.  Such  is  your  argument.  Xow, 
sir,  if  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  are  to  be  received 
as  credible  testimony  to  the  miracles  of  Christ,  why  not  on 
the  subject  of  their  own  inspiration  ?  Are  you  not  aware 
that  the  great  historical  "  argument  on  which  Protestants 
rely  in  proving  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  presup- 
poses only  the  genuineness  of  the  books  and  the  credibility'^ 
of  their  authors  ?  You  have  yourself  admitted  that  the 
teaching  of  the  Apostles  was  supernaturally  protected  from 
error,  and  if  their  oral  instructions  were  dictated  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  why  should  that  august  and  glorious  visitant 
desert  them  when  they  took  the  pen  to  accomplish  the  same 
object,  when  absent,  which,  when  present,  they  accomplished 
by  the  tongue  f  ^     They  themselves  declare  that  their  writ- 

1  "  We  have  seen  how  fully  gifted  the  Apostles  were  for  the  business  of 
their  mission.  They  worked  miracles,  they  spake  with  tongues,  they 
explained  mysteries,  they  interpreted  prophecies,  they  discerned  the  true 
from  the  false  pretences  to  the  Spirit,  and  all  this  for  the  temporary  and 
occasional  discharge  of  their  ministry.  Is  it  possible,  then,  to  suppose 
them  to  be  deserted  by  their  Divine  Enlightener  when  they  sat  down  to 
the  other  part  of  their  work  to  frame  a  rule  for  the  lasting  service  of  the 
Church  ?  Can  we  believe  that  that  Spirit  which  so  bountifully  assisted 
them  in  their  assemblies  had  withdrawn  Himself  when  they  retired  to 
their  private  oratories,  or  that  when  their  speech  was  with  all  power  their 
writings  should  convey  no  more  than  the  weak  and  fallible  dictates  of 
human  knowledge  ?  To  suppose  the  endowments  of  the  Spirit  to  be  so 
capriciously  bestowed  would  make  it  look  more  like  a  mockery  than  a 
gift."      Warbiirton,  Doct.  of  Grace,  book  i.,  chap.  v. 


Letter  IV.]  HISTORICAL   ARGUMENT.  465 

ings  possessed  the  same  authority  with  their  oral  instruc- 
tions. Peter*  ranks  the  Epistles  of  Paul  with  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  Testament,  which  were  confessed  to  be 
inspired,  and  Paul  exhorts  the  Thessalonians  to  hold  fast 
the  traditions  which  they  had  received  from  him,  either  by 
word  or  epistle.^  If,  then,  the  credibility  of  these  books  is 
a  matter  so  plain  and  palpable,  and  can  be  so  "  easily  sub- 
stantiated"— and  such  is  your  concession — what  need  of 
Hebrew,  Greek,  Latin,  Syriac,  Chaldee  and  divers  modern 
tongues,  together  with  Geology,  Chemistry,  Natural  His- 
tory, and  almost  every  science,  to  make  out  their  inspira- 
tion f  They  assert  it,  and  they  are  to  be  believed ;  there- 
fore one  would  think  they  might  be  believed  by  a  simple, 
unlettered  man,  without  being  master  of  a  library  of  which 
Charleston  and  perhaps  Columbia  is  too  poor  to  boast!  I 
had  always  thought  that  the  only  difficulty  in  making  out 
the  external  proof  of  inspiration  was  in  establishing  the 
credibility  of  the  books  which  profess  to  be  inspired.  It  had 
struck  me  that  if  it  were  once  settled  that  their  own  testi- 
mony was  to  be  received,  the  matter  was  at  an  end.  But  it 
seems  now  that  the  credibility  of  a  witness  is  no  proof  that 
he  speaks  the  truth,  and  though  "  the  accuracy  of  his  state- 
ments can  be  easily  substantiated,  even  to  the  mind  of  an 
Indian  or  a  negro,"  there  is  one  fact  about  which  he  cannot 
be  believed,  except  by  a  man  who  carries  all  the  learning  of 
Europe  and  America  in  his  head.  Nay,  with  all  the  advan- 
tages of  a  "  larger  library  than  Charleston  can  boast  of," 
with  the  tongues  alike  of  the  dead  and  living,  with  univer- 
sal Science  pouring  her  treasures  in  boundless  profusion  at 
his  feet,  with  an  almost  "supernatural  accuracy  of  judg- 
ment," added  to  other  marvellous  accomplishments,  it  is 
still  doubtful  whether,  in  the  way  of  private  judgment,  a 
man  could  ever  be  assured  that  credible  books  are  to  be 
believed  on  the  subject  of  their  origin  !^     But  just  let  one  of 

1  2  Pet.  iii.  15,  16.  2  2  Thess.  ii.  15. 

'""Whether  any  investigation  in  either  or  botli  cla'^ses"  (that  is,  of 
external  and  internal  evidence),  ''carried  on  even  under  the  most  favonr- 
VoL.  III.— 30 


466    ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Letter  IV. 

an  infallible  body  present  himself  before  a  Christian  or  an 
infidel,  an  Indian  or  a  negro,  and  how  changed  the  scene ! 
As  if  at  the  waving  of  a  wizard's  wand  the  mists  are  dis- 
pelled, the  shadows  disappear,  a  flood  of  light  removes  all 
lingering  doubt,  and  an  infant  mind  can  surmount  those 
giant  difficulties  which  "  veteran  scholars "  and  "  sage  phi- 
losophers" were  unable  to  subdue.  This  teacher  can  achieve 
these  mighty  wonders  before  it  is  jj'i^oved  that  he  belongs  to 
au  unerring  band ;  there  is  magic  in  his  voice.  Just  let  him 
ope  his  ponderous  lips  and  give  the  word,  and  the  sun  of 
the  Scriptures  no  longer  "  looks  through  the  horizontal  misty 
air  shorn  of  his  beams,  no  longer  stands  in  awful  eclipse 
scattering  disastrous  twilight  over  half  the  nations,"  but 
shines  out  in  the  full  effulgence  of  meridian  day ! 

It  is  strange  to  me  that  you  did  not  perceive  the  egre- 
gious absurdity  of  attempting  to  establish  the  infallible 
authority  of  a  body  of  individuals  upon  historical  grounds, 
when  you  denied  the  possibility  of  proving  the  infallible 
authority  of  the  Scriptures  by  the  same  process. 

The  evidence  in  both  cases  is  precisely  of  the  same  nature. 
The  inspiration  of  Rome  turns  upon  a  promise  which  is 
said  to  have  been  made  nearly  two  thousand  years  ago ;  the 
inspiration  of  the  New  Testament  turns  upon  facts  which 
are  said  to  have  occurred  at  the  time.  Both  the  promises 
and  the  facts  are  to  be  found,  if  found  at  all,  in  this  very 
New  Testament.  Now,  how  does  it  happen  that  when  the 
point  to  be  proved  is  the  pretended  promise  made  to  the 
pastors  of  Rome,  the  New  Testament  becomes  amazingly 
accurate,  and  the  proofs  of  its  credibility  are  neither  above 
nor  contrary  "  to  the  means  or  understanding  of  an  Indian 
or  a  negro,"  but  when  the  point  to  be  proved  is  the  facts 
which  establish  the  inspiration  of  the  writers,  then  the  New 
Testament  becomes  involved  in  a  cloud  of  uncertainty  which 
no  human  learning  is  able  to  remove  ?     Your  argument,  sir, 

able  circumstancevS,  will  unerringly  prove  the  inspiration  of  any  books  of 
the  Scripture,  I  leave  to  be  mooted  by  those  who  choose  to  undertake  the 
task."    Letter  I. 


Letter  IV.]  HISTORICAL   ARGUMENT.  467 

has  certainly  placed  you  in  a  sad  dilemma.  You  cannot 
make  out  the  historical  proofs  of  Papal  infallibility  with- 
out making  out  at  the  same  time  the  historical  jiroofs  of 
scriptural  inspiration.  Both  must  be  traced  through  the 
same  channels  to  the  age  of  the  Apostles. 

Now,  one  of  two  things  must  be  true — either  the  credi- 
bility of  tte  Scriptures  can  be  substantiated  to  a  plain  unlet- 
tered man,  or  it  cannot.  If  it  can  be,  then  there  is  no  need 
of  your  infallible  body  to  authenticate  their  inspiration, 
since  that  matter  can  be  easily  gathered  from  their  own 
pages.  If  it  cannot,  then  your  argument  from  the  Scrip- 
tures to  an  Indian  or  a  negro  in  favour  of  an  infallible  body 
is  inadmissible,  since  he  is  incapable  of  apprehending  the 
premises  from  which  your  conclusion  is  drawn.  You  have 
taken  both  horns  of  this  dilemma,  pushing  Protestants  with 
one  and  upholding  Popery  with  the  other,  and  both  are 
fatal  to  you.  Now,  as  it  is  rather  difficult  to  be  on  both 
sides  of  the  same  question  at  the  same  time,  you  must  adhere 
to  one  or  the  other.  If  you  adhere  to  your  first  position,  that 
all  human  learning  is  necessary  to  settle  the  credibility  of 
the  Scriptures,  then  you  must  seek  other  proofs  of  an  infal- 
lible body  than  those  which  you  think  you  have  gathered 
from  the  Apostles.  You  must  first  establish  the  infallibility 
of  the  body  that  claims  to  teach  us,  and  then  receive  the 
Sacred  Oracles  at  their  hand.  A  circulating  syllogism 
proves  nothing  ;  and  if  he  who  establishes  the  credibility  of 
the  Scriptures  by  an  infallible  body,  and  then  establishes 
the  infallibility  of  the  body  from  the  credibility  of  the 
Scriptures,  does  not  reason  in  a  circle,  I  am  at  a  loss  to 
apprehend  the  nature  of  that  sophism.  If  you  adhere  to 
your  other  position,  that  the  accuracy  of  the  Evangelists 
can  be  easily  substantiated,  then  your  objections  to  private 
judgment  are  fairly  given  up,  and  you  surrender  the  point 
that  a  man  can  decide  for  himself  Avith  absolute  certainty 
concerning  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible.  Take  which  horn 
you  please,  your  cause  is  ruined,  but  you  have  chosen  both ! 

The  process  by  which  you  endeavour  to  elicit  an  infallible 


468    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSS KD.   [Lktter  IV. 

body  of  teachers  from  the  Scriptures  is  in  perfect  keeping 
with  the  rest  of  your  argument.  You  do  not  pretend  that 
they  contain  any  express  testimony  to  the  fact;  neither 
do  you  deduce  from  them  any  marks  by  which  your  unerring 
guides  of  faith  can  be  discriminated  from  those  who  intro- 
duce errors  and  attempt  to  change  the  religion  of  Christ. 
How  then  does  it  appear  that  sucli  infallible  instrtictors  were 
appointed?  Why,  there  is  no  other  way  in  which  Gotl  could 
accomplish  His  purpose  of  transmitting  Christianity  pure 
and  uncorrupted  to  the  remotest  generations  of  men  !  This 
is  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  argument  for  the  sake  of 
which  you  have  made  yourself  so  consummately  inconsistent, 
by  contradicting  your  previous  statements  in  regard  to  the 
credibility  of  the  Scriptures!  "Some  adequate  provision 
must  be  made  against  the  error  and  change-seeking  tendency 
of  man,"  and  as  Christianity  is  appointed  to  be  learned  from 
persons  delegated  to  teach  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority 
of  Christ,  "  that  provision  must  evidently  and  necessarily  be 
directed  to  preserve  that  body  of  teachers  by  the  power  of 
God  from  error,  and  to  make  them  in  fact  teach  all  things 
whatsoever  He  had  taught  them." 

That  an  infallible  body  of  teachers  presents  the  only  ef- 
fectual means  of  perpetuating  the  religion  of  Christ,  un- 
adulterated with  error,  is  so  exceedingly  unlikely  that  it 
would  require  nothing  less  than  a  constant  miracle  to  pre- 
serve a  system  transmitted  in  this  way  from  corruptions, 
additions  and  radical  changes.  Unless  each  individual 
pastor  were  himself  infallible,  fatal  errors  might  be  widely 
disseminated  before  the  body  could  be  collected  together  to 
separate  the  chaflP  from  the  wheat  and  to  distinguish  the 
precious  from  the  vile.  Three  centuries  have  hardly 
passed  away  since  the  last  General  Council  of  the  Roman 
Church  was  first  convened.  In  that  lapse  of  time  how 
many  unauthorized  opinions  may  have  gained  currency 
among  the  pastors  of  your  Church,  and  have  perverted  your 
flocks  from  the  true  doctrines  of  Rome !  The  truth  is, 
without  a   perpetual    superintendence   over  the  mind  and 


I 


Letter  IV.]  HISTORICAL   ARGUMENT.  4G9 

heart  of  every  solitary  teaelier,  amounting  to  a  niiraculon.s 
protection  from  error,  the  plan  of  transmitting  a  system  of 
religion  by  oral  tradition  is  the  most  unsafcj  uncertain  and 
liable  to  abuse  of  any  that  could  be  adopted.  The  com- 
monest story  cannot  pass  through  a  single  community  with- 
out gathering  additions  as  it  goes.  How  then  shall  a  com- 
plicated system  of  religion  be  handed  down  from  generation 
to  generation,  passed  on  from  lip  to  lip,  and  from  age  to 
age,  and  lose  nothing  of  its  original  integrity,  and  gain 
nothing  from  the  invention  of  man  ?  Sir,  your  "  com- 
mon sense,"  and  "  the  common  sense  of  an  Indian  or  negro," 
might  lead  you  "to  expect  that  this  is  the  course  which 
the  Saviour  would  adopt,"  but  nothing  but  His  own  AVord 
could  render  it  credible  to  me.  No,  sir,  God  has  taken  a 
different  method  to  guard  against  the  "  error  and  change- 
seeking  tendencies  of  men."  He  has  committed  His  holy 
religion  to  icritten  documenU,  which  are  to  abide  as  an  in- 
fallible standard  of  faith  till  the  heavens  and  the  earth  are 
no  more.  There,  and  there  alone,  we  are  to  seek  the  truth. 
By  them,  and  them  alone,  all  the  spirits  are  to  be  tried,  all 
the  teachers  are  to  be  judged;  and  if  Roman  pastors,  with 
their  wicked  pretensions  to  infallible  authority,  speak  not 
according  to  these  Records,  they  are  to  be  cast  out  as  lying 
j)rophets  whom  the  Lord  hath  not  sent. 

You  have  totally  misconceived  the  appropriate  functions 
of  the  Christian  ministry.  Sir,  the  preachers  of  the  Gospel 
were  never  designed  to  be  the  lords  of  the  people's  faith, 
but  helpers  of  their  joy.  They  are  to  propose,  but  it 
belongs  to  the  Scriptures  alone  to  confirm  or  prove,  the  doc- 
trines of  religion.  The  infallible  standard  is  in  the  Bible, 
and  they  who  are  noble  will,  like  the  Bereans,  test  the  in- 
structions of  their  pastors  by  the  true  and  faithful  sayings 
of  God. 

You  must  remember,  sir,  that  the  Scrij)tures,  which  you 
have  admitted  to  be  credible,  which  were  written  by  men 
under  a  special  promise  of  Christ  to  be  protected  from  error 


470    ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [LETTER  TV. 

and  instructed  in  the  truth,  profess  to  be  a  perfect  rule  of 
faith  and  practice.  "  Their  accuracy  can  be  easily  substan- 
tiated/' even  to  the  most  illiterate  understanding.  Why, 
then,  should  there  be  an  infallible  stream  of  tradition  kept 
up  by  a  constant  miracle  running  parallel  with  the  infallible 
stream  of  Scripture,  which  can  be  and  has  been  preserved 
pure  by  the  ordinary  providence  of  God  ?  Is  a  large  va- 
riety of  means  for  the  accomplishment  of  any  effect,  when 
a  few  are  abundantly  adequate,  characteristic  of  the  works 
of  God?  Is  it  His  ordinary  course  to  multiply  agents 
when  a  single  cause  is  sufficient  for  His  purpose?  Your 
assumption,  then,  that  a  body  of  infallible  teachers  is  neces- 
sary to  preserve  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  in  their  origi- 
nal purity  is  wholly  groundless,  and  your  argument,  conse- 
quently, may  be  given  to  the  winds.  The  Bible  shows  us  a 
more  excellent  way. 

You  have  indirectly  insisted  upon  the  promises  of  Christ 
that  He  would  send  the  Spirit  to  guide  His  disciples  into  all 
truth,  and  be  ^vith  them  to  assist  and  bless  them  in  preach- 
ing His  Gospel  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  But,  sir,  these 
promises  do  not  serve  your  purpose.  The  first  was  fulfilled 
in  each  of  the  Apostles,  and  if  it  is  to  be  applied  in  a 
similar  form  to  all  their  successors,  it  would  prove  the  full 
inspiration  of  every  lawful  minister  of  God.  This  is  more 
than  you  are  willing  to  admit.  You  have  already  told  us 
that  no  single  individual  is  to  be  received  as  an  infallible 
teacher,  but  that  the  authority  to  make  an  unerring  decision 
belongs  exclusively  "  to  a  body  of  individuals  in  their  col- 
lective capacity."  Our  Saviour  said  nothing  of  such  a 
body ;  His  promise  in  reference  to  the  Apostles  was  evidently 
personal,  and  applied  to  them  in  the  official  relations  which 
each  sustained  as  a  steward  of  the  mysteries  of  God.  How, 
then,  was  the  promise  accomplished  to  succeeding  ages  ?  By 
leading  the  Apostles,  under  the  insj)iration  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  to  record  the  infallible  instructions  of  Christ,  which 
should  be  a  perpetual  rule  of  faith,  containing  all  things  im- 


Letter  IV.]  HISTORICAL   ARGUMENT.  471 

portant  for  man  to  know  or  for  man  to  do.^  These  venerable 
men  live  in  their  l)ooks  :  "  for  books  ai*e  not  absolutely  dead 
things,  but  do  contain  a  progeny  of  life  in  them,  to  be  as 
active  as  that  soul  whose  progeny  they  are ;  nay,  they  do 

^  See  this  subject  ably  and  satisfactorily  discussed  in  Warburton's  Doc- 
trine of  Grace,  pt.  i.,  and  Bishop  Hebei-'s  Bampton  Lectures.  The  reader 
will  excu.se  the  following  extract  from  the  7th  of  Heber's  Lectures : 

"It  appears,  then,  that  the  advent  of  the  Paraclete,  and  his  abode 
among  men,  would  be,  during  any  period  of  Christian  history,  sufficiently 
evinced  by  the  existence  of  one  or  more  inspired  individuals,  whose  au- 
thority should  govern,  whose  lights  should  guide,  whose  promises  should 
console  their  less  distinguished  brethren,  and  by  whom,  and  in  whom,  as 
the  agents  and  organs  of  His  will,  the  Holy  Ghost  should  be  recognized 
as  Sovereign  of  the  Church  LTniversal.  But  if  this  be  conceded,  it  will 
signify  but  very  little,  or  (to  speak  more  boldly,  perhaps,  but  not  less  ac- 
curately) it  will  be  a  circumstance  altogether  insignificant,  whether  the  in- 
struction afforded  be  oral  or  epistolary ;  whether  the  government  be  carried 
on  by  the  authority  of  a  present  lawgiver,  or  through  the  medium  of  re- 
scripts bearing  his  seal,  and,  no  less  than  his  personal  mandates,  compulsory 
on  the  obedience  of  the  faithful.  In  every  government,  whether  human  or 
Divine,  the  amanuensis  of  a  sovereign  is  an  agent  of  his  will,  no  less  or- 
dinary and  effectual  than  his  herald ;  and  St.  Paul  both  might  and  did  lay 
claim  to  an  equal  deference  when,  in  the  name  and  on  behalf  of  that 
Spirit  by  whom  he  was  actuated,  he  censured  by  his  letters  the  incestuous 
Corinthian,  as  if  he  had,  when  present  and  by  word  of  mouth,  pronounced 
the  ecclesiastical  sentence.  It  follows  that  the  Holy  Ghost  as  accurately 
fulfilled  the  engagement  of  Christ,  as  the  Patron  and  Governor  of  Chris- 
tians, by  the  writings  of  the  inspired  person  when  absent  as  by  his  actual 
presence  and  preaching.  And  if  St.  Paul,  having  once  by  Divine  au- 
thority set  in  order  the  Asiatic  and  Grecian  churches,  had  departed  for 
Spain,  or  Britain,  or  some  other  country  at  so  great  a  distance  as  to  render 
all  subsequent  communication  impossible,  yet  still,  so  long  as  the  instruc- 
tions left  behind  sufficed  for  the  wants  and  interests  of  the  community, 
that  community  would  not  have  ceased  to  be  guided  and  governed  by  the 
Holy  Gho.st  through  the  writings  of  His  chosen  servant.  But  that  au- 
thority which  we  allow  to  the  writings  of  an  absent  Apostle  we  cannot, 
without  offending  against  every  analogy  of  reason  and  custom,  deny  to 
those  which  a  deceased  Apostle  has  left  behind  him.  For  the  authority  of 
such  writings,  I  need  hardly  observe,  is  of  an  official,  not  of  a  personal 
nature.  It  does  not  consist  in  their  having  emanated  from  Peter  or  James 
or  John,  abstractly  considered  (in  which  case,  the  authority  of  any  one  of 
them  might,  undoubtedly,  terminate  with  his  life),  but  their  authority  is 
founded  in  that  faith  which  receives  these  persons  as  accredited  agents  of  the 
Almighty.  We  reverence  their  communications  as  the  latest  edicts  of  the 
Paraclete ;  and  Ave  believe  all  further  communications  to  have  ceased  for 


472    ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [LETTER  IV. 

preserve,  as  in  a  vial,  the  purest  efficacy  and  extraction  of 
that  living  intellect  that  bred  them.  A  good  book  is  the 
precious  life-blood  of  a  master-spirit,  embalmed  and  treas- 
ured up  on  purpose  to  a  life  beyond  life."  It  is  in  the 
Records  which  they  left  that  we  now  find  the  Spirit  of  inspira- 
tion ;  there  is  His  abode,  there  the  place  of  His  supreme 
illumination,  and  in  these  books,  consequently,  Christianity 
must  be  sought  in  its  purity  and  vigour. 

The  other  promise  pledges  the  assistance  of  Christ  to 
those  who  preach  the  truth.  It  is  a  standing  encourage- 
ment to  all  ministers  that  in  faithfully  dispensing  the  Word 
of  God  according  to  the  law  and  the  testimony  their  labour 
should  not  be  in  vain  in  the  Lord.  Our  Saviour  had  pre- 
viously given  a  command  to  go  into  all  the  world  and 
preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature.  The  prospect  of  suc- 
cess in  the  fulfilment  of  this  solemn  injunction,  from  the 
condition  of  society,  the  prejudices  of  the  Jews,  the  philos- 
ophy of  the  Greeks  and  the  superstition  of  the  Romans, 
was  far  from  encouraging.  To  support  their  faith  and 
quicken  their  hopes  their  ascending  Saviour  pledged  His 
almighty  power  to  make  His  truth  efiPectual  in  bringing 
down  lofty  imaginations  and  subduing  the  hearts  of  men 
in  captivity  to  His  cross.     The  promise  in  that  passage  is 

a  time ;  not  because  these  eminent  servants  of  God  have  long  since  gone 
to  their  reward,  for  it  were  as  easy  for  the  Holy  Spirit  to  raise  up  otlier 
prophets  in  their  room  as  it  was  originally  to  qualify  them  for  that  high 
office — not  because  we  apprehend  that  the  good  Spirit  is  become  indifl'er- 
ent  to  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  for  this  would  be  in  utter  contradiction 
to  the  gracious  assurance  of  our  Saviour ;  but  because  sufficient  light  has 
been  already  afforded  for  the  government  of  our  hopes  and  tempers;  and 
because  no  subsequent  question  has  occurred  for  wliich  the  Scriptures 

already  given  had  not  already  and  sufficiently  provided 

"  We  conclude,  then,  as  Warburton  has  long  since  concluded  (though  he 
arrived  at  the  same  truth  by  a  process  somewhat  different,  and  encum- 
bered its  definition  by  circumstances  which  I  have  shown  to  be  irrelevant), 
— we  conclude  that  it  is  by  the  revelation  of  the  Christian  covenant,  and  by 
the  preservation  of  the  knowledge  thus  communicated  to  the  ancient 
Church  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  has 
manifested  and  continues,  as  the  Vicar  and  Successor  of  Christ,  to  mani- 
fest his  protecting  care  of  Christianity." 


Letter  IV.]  HISTORICAL    ARGUMENT.  473 

not  tliat  they  should  speak  the  truth,  and  nothing  but  the 
truth,  but  that  in  speaking  the  truth,  in  preaching  Avhatever 
He  had  commanded,  He  would  be  with  them  always,  even 
to  the  end  of  the  world ;  and  this  promise  has  never  failed. 

Your  letter  contains  a  few  incidental  statements,  intro- 
duced in  the  way  of  cumulative  testimony,  to  confirm  the 
pretensions  of  your  infallible  body.  You  tell  us  first  that 
it  can  trace  its  predecessors  in  an  unbroken  line  up  to  the 
age  of  the  Apostles  themselves.  So  far  is  this  from  being 
the  truth,  that  not  a  single  priest  in  your  Church  can  have 
any  absolute  certainty  that  he  is  a  priest  at  all  unless  he  be 
invested  with  the  prerogative  of  God  to  search  the  hearts 
and  try  the  reins  of  the  children  of  men.  Intention,  on 
your  principles,  is  an  essential  element  of  a  valid  ordina- 
tion !  How  can  a  priest  be  assured  that  his  bishop  intended 
to  ordain  him,  or  how  can  the  bishop  be  assured  that  he 
himself  was  lawfully  consecrated  ?  The  whole  matter  is 
involved  in  confusion,  and  you  cannot  know  whether  you 
are  pastors  at  all  or  not. 

Again,  you  inform  us  of  the  prodigious  numbers  that 
have  been  converted  by  the  labours  of  your  infallible 
teachers.  Sir,  the  world  loveth  its  own,  and  it  is  character- 
istic of  the  broad  road  Avhich  leads  to  death  that  thousands 
are  journeying  its  downward  course.  Mohammed  laid  the 
foundations  of  an  empire  which  in  the  course  of  eighty 
years  extended  farther  than  tlie  Roman  arms  for  eight 
hundred  years  had  been  able  to  spread  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Csesars.  In  this  comparatively  short  sj)ace  of  time  there 
Avere  brought  under  the  sway  of  the  Crescent  the  Grecian, 
Persian  and  Mogul  States,  with  many  others  of  inferior 
importance,  and  yet  Mohammedanism,  notwithstanding  its 
unparalleled  success,  was  a  gross  system  of  imposture  and 
fraud.  The  purity  of  a  system  is  not  to  be  determined  by 
the  multitudes  that  embrace  it.  How  significant  is  the 
question  of  our  Saviour,  "  When  the  Son  of  man  cometh, 
shall  He  find  faith  on  the  earth?"  "Fear  not,  little  flock,  it  is 
your  Father's  good  pleasure  to  give  you  the  kingdom." 


474   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Letter  IV. 

Why  have  you  omitted  all  mention  of  the  meekness  and 
patience  that  have  always  been  characteristic  of  the  Church 
of  God  ?  Were  you  conscious,  sir,  that  you  had  no  claims 
to  that  discriminating  badge  of  the  fliithful  ?  Did  the  past 
rise  up  before  you  in  horrible  distinctness  and  warn  you  to 
forbear  ?  Rome,  Papal  Rome,  which  professes  to '  be  the 
humble,  meek,  patient,  suffering  Church  of  God,  is  literally 
steeped  in  human  gore.  Your  pastors  have  inflicted  more  suf- 
ferings upon  men,  have  shed  more  human  blood,  have  invent- 
ed a  greater  variety  of  tortures,  have  more  deeply  revelled 
in  human  misery  and  feasted  on  human  groans,  than  all  the 
tyrants,  bigots  and  despots  of  all  the  other  systems  of  super- 
stition and  oppression  that  have  ever  appeared  in  the  world 
from  the  fall  of  man  to  the  present  day.  To  Papal  Rome 
the  foul  pre-eminence  of  cruelty  must  unquestionably  be 
awarded.  The  holy  ministers  of  the  Inquisition,  under  the 
sacred  name  of  religion,  have  tested  to  its  utmost  limits  the 
capacity  of  human  endurance ;  every  bone,  muscle,  sinew 
and  nerve  has  been  effectually  sounded,  and  the  precise 
point  ascertained  at  which  agony  is  no  longer  tolerable,  and 
the  convulsed  and  quivering  spirit  must  quit  its  tenement 
of  clay.  The  degree  of  refinement  and  perfection  to  which 
the  art  of  torment  has  been  carried  in  these  infernal  prisons 
is  enough  to  make  humanity  shudder  and  religion  sicken, 
and  nothing  but  the  most  invincible  blindness  could  ever 
confound  these  habitations  of  cruelty,  these  dark  corners  of 
the  earth,  with  the  means  of  grace  and  the  elements  of  sal- 
vation. How  preposterous,  while  breathing  out  slaughter 
and  cruelty,  exhibiting  more  the  spirit  of  cannibals  than  the 
temper  of  Christians,  to  claim  to  be  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church,  the  chosen  depository  of  truth,  the  special  temple 
of  the  Holy  Ghost ! 

Having,  as  you  suppose,  sufficiently  proved  that  an  infal- 
lible body  exists,  you  next  proceed  to  show  us  that  it  must 
be  composed  of  the  pastors  and  teachers  of  your  own  com-, 
munion.  This  part  of  your  argument  need  not  detain  me 
long,  as  I  have  clearly  refuted  your  proofs  of  the  existence 


Letter  v.]  HISTORICAL  DIFFICULTIES.  475 

of  such  a  body.  Still,  if  it  did  exist,  the  mere  claim  of 
Rome  would  not  establish  her  pretensions  to  be  received  as 
an  unerring  tribunal  of  faith.  Theudas  and  Judas  each 
claimed  to  be  the  promised  Messiah  of  the  Jews.  Moham- 
med claimed  to  be  a  true  prophet  of  God,  and  the  Devil 
himself  sometimes  claims  to  be  an  angel  of  light.  If  an 
arrogant  claim  is  sufficient  to  establish  a  right,  and  such  a 
right  is  founded  in  absolute  certainty,  how  long  would  the 
distinctions  of  truth  and  falsehood,  of  virtue  and  vice,  be 
preserved  among  men  ? 


LETTER   V. 

INFALLIBILITY— HISTORICAL    DIFFICULTIES. 

The  infallibility  of  the  Papal  Church  is  a  doctrine  so 
momentous  in  its  consequences  as  to  deserve  a  more  ex- 
tended view  than  a  simple  refutation  of  the  arguments  by 
which  you  have  endeavoured  to  support  it.  This,  sir,  is 
the  TipcozoD  if'toooz  of  your  system,  the  foundation  of  those 
enormous  corruptions  in  doctrine  and  abuses  in  discipline 
by  which  you  have  enslaved  the  consciences  of  men,  and 
transmuted  the  pure  and  glorious  Gospel  of  Christ  into  a 
dark  and  malignant  superstition,  which  through  fear  of 
your  malediction  keeps  its  deluded  victims  in  bondage  in 
this  world,  and  from  the  certain  malediction  of  God  dooms 
them  to  perdition  in  the  world  to  come.  Your  pretensions 
to  the  unerring  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost  render  change 
impossible  and  reformation  hopeless.  Whatever  you  have 
been  in  the  past  ages  of  your  history  you  are  to-day ;  and 
the  errors  which  in  other  times  ignorance  engendered  from 
a  warm  imagination,  or  which  avarice  and  ambition  have 
found  it  convenient  to  present  to  the  world  as  the  offspring 
of  truth,  must  still  be  defended  and  still  carried  out  into 
all  their  legitimate  results.  The  impositions  Avhich  you 
practised  in  an  age  of  darkness  must  now  be  justified  in  an 


47B      ARGUMENTS   FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.   [Letter  V. 

age  of  light.  The  absurdities  of  the  past,  which  sprang 
from  the  blind  superstition  of  monks  and  priests  or  from 
the  lordly  pretensions  of  popes  and  prelates,  must  now  be 
fathered  upon  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  that  aid  which  neither 
reason  nor  the  Scriptures  impart  to  your  dogmas  must  be 
supported  by  an  arrogant  claim  to  the  control  and  super- 
vision of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  is  your  last  resort;  and 
when  this  corner-stone  is  removed  your  whole  system  tot- 
ters to  its  fall.  It  is  the  impression  of  Divine  authority 
that  conceals  from  your  parasites  the  hideous  proportions 
of  the  Papal  fabric ;  it  is  this  which  throws  a  charm  of 
solemnity  around  it,  and  renders  that  awful  and  venerable 
which  seen  in  its  true  light  would  at  once  be  pronounced 
the  temple  of  Antichrist.  The  question,  therefore,  of  infal- 
libility is  to  you  a  question  of  life  and  death.  The  very 
being  of  the  Papacy  depends  upon  maintaining  the  spell  by 
which  you  have  so  long  deluded  the  nations  of  the  earth. 
Let  this  wand  of  your  enchantment  be  broken  and  tlie 
cliambers  of  your  imagery  disclosed,  and  darker  abomina- 
tions will  be  revealed  than  those  which  the  prophet  beheld 
in  the  temple  of  the  Lord  at  Jerusalem. 

In  pretending  to  the  distinguished  prerogative  of  infal- 
libility, there  is  a  prodigious  and  astonishing  contrast  be- 
tween the  weakness  of  your  proofs  and  the  extravagance 
of  your  claims.  It  seems  that  you  act  upon  the  principle 
by  which  Tertullian  once  supported  a  palpable  absurdity, 
and  resolve  to  believe  it,  because,  under  the  circumstances 
of  the  case,  it  is  absolutely  impossible  that  it  can  be  true. 

The  ordinary  arguments  which  your  writers  are  accus- 
tomed to  adduce  proceed  upon  a  principle  radically  false. 
They  reason  from  expediency  to  fact,  and  because  an  infal- 
lible tribunal  is  supposed  to  be  a  proper  appointment  for 
suppressing  heresy  and  terminating  controversy  in  matters 
of  faith,  it  is  rashly  inferred  that  such  a  tribunal  has  been 
actually  established.  The  inconsistency  of  such  an  arrange- 
ment with  that  peculiar  probation  which  the  moral  govern- 
ment of  God  involves,  in  which  our  charactei-s  are  tested. 


Letter  V.]  HISTORICAL    DIFFICULTIES.  477 

our  principles  developed  and  the  real  inelinations  of  the 
heart  made  manifest — a  probation  which  necessarily  sup- 
poses temptations,  dangers  and  trials,  both  in  apprehending 
the  truth  and  in  discharging  the  duties  of  life — seems  to 
form  no  part  of  their  estimate.  With  such  a  condition  of 
moral  discipline  the  plan  which  the  providence  of  God  has 
appointed  lor  arriving  at  certainty  upon  the  truths  of  the 
Gospel  is  perfectly  consistent.  The  truth  is  committed  to 
written  documents;  the  reception  of  those  documents  de- 
pends in  a  great  degree  upon  the  state  of  the  heart,  which, 
as  the  medium  through  which  it  must  pass,  imparts  its  own 
tinge  to  the  evidence  submitted.  They  that  are  willing  to 
comply  with  the  commandments  are  in  that  mental  condi- 
tion which  disposes  them  to  receive  and  justly  to  appreciate 
the  truth  of  God;  and  to  all  such  the  Spirit  of  grace,  which 
the  Saviour  bequeathed  as  a  legacy  to  the  Church,  will  im- 
part an  infallible  assurance  to  establish  their  minds.  A 
plan  like  this  is  in  harmonious  accordance  with  every  other 
feature  of  the  moral  government  of  God.  The  understand- 
ing is  as  really  tested  as  the  heart,  or  rather  the  dispositions 
of  the  heart — the  moral  character  of  the  man  is  really  exhib- 
ited by  his  dealings  with  the  truth.  There  is  in  the  first 
instance  no  overwhelming  evidence  which  quells  opposition, 
silences  prejudice  and  conceals  the  native  enmity  of  man 
against  spiritual  light.  There  is  no  resistless  demonstration 
which  compels  assent,  and  which,  by  rendering  us  timid  in 
indulging  inclination,  may  make  us  less  visibly  vicious,  but 
not  less  really  depraved  nor  more  truly  virtuous.  There 
is  no  portentous  sign  from  heaven  which  startles  the  skeptic 
in  his  parleys  with  error,  and  forces  him  to  receive  what 
his  nature  leads  him  to  detest.  The  true  evidence  of  the 
Gospel  is  a  growing  evidence,  sufficient  always  to  create 
obligation  and  to  produce  assurance,  but  effectual  only  as 
the  heart  expands  in  fellowship  with  God  and  becomes 
assimilated  to  the  spirits  of  the  just.  It  is  precisely  the 
evidence  which  is  suited  to  our  moral  condition.  And  any 
views  of  expediency   which  would   prompt   us  to  expect  a 


478     ARGUMENTS   FOR  APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.   [Letter  V. 

different  kind  of  evidence — an  evidence  which  should  stifle 
or  repress  those  peculiar  traits  of  character  by  which  error 
is  engendered — would  be  inconsistent  with  the  state  in  which 
we  are  placed.  Hence,  we  are  told  that  it  must  needs  be 
that  heresies  should  come,  that  they  which  are  approved 
may  be  made  manifest.  Our  real  condition  requires  the 
possibility  of  error ;  and  God  consequently  has  made  no 
arrangements  for  absolutely  terminating  controversies  and 
settling  questions  of  faith  without  regard  to  the  moral  sym- 
pathies of  men.  Upon  the  supposition,  however,  that  a 
kind  of  evidence  was  intended  to  be  provided  by  which 
the  truth  might  be  infallibly  apprehended  while  the  heart 
continued  in  rebellion  against  God;  by  which  the  possibility 
of  cavil  might  be  removed  and  no  plausible  pretext  be 
afforded  to  the  sophist ;  by  which,  in  fact,  the  light  actually 
vouchsafed  should  not  only  be  sufficient,  but  wholly  irre- 
sistible,— if  the  object  had  been  to  extirpate  error  and  to 
prevent  controversy,  it  would  have  been  a  less  circuitous 
method  to  have  made  each  man  personally  infallible,  and 
thus  have  secured  the  reception  of  the  truth.  The  argu- 
ment from  expediency  is  certainly  as  strong  in  favour  of 
individual  infallibility  as  in  favour  of  the  infallibility  of  a 
special  body:  it  is  even  stronger,  for  the  end  desired  to  be 
gained  could  be  much  more  speedily  and  effectually  accom- 
plished. Errors  would  not  only  be  checked  but  prevented, 
controversy  would  be  torn  up  by  the  roots,  and  the  whole 
world  would  be  made  to  harmonize  in  symbols  of  faith.  "^ 

1  "  But  it  is  more  useful  and  fit,  you  say,  for  deciding  of  controversies, 
to  have,  besides  an  infallible  rule  to  go  by,  a  living,  infallible  judge  to 
determine  them;  and  from  hence  you  conclude  that  certainly  there  is 
such  a  judge.  But  why,  then,  may  not  another  say  that  it  is  yet  more 
useful,  for  many  excellent  purposes,  that  all  the  patriarchs  should  be  in- 
fallible, than  that  the  Pope  only  should  ?  Another,  that  it  would  be  yet 
more  useful  that  all  the  archbishops  of  every  province  should  be  so,  than 
that  the  patriarchs  only  should  be  so.  Another,  that  it  would  be  yet  more 
useful  if  all  the  bishops  of  every  diocese  were  so.  Anotlier,  that  it  would 
be  yet  more  available  that  all  the  parsons  of  every  parish  should  be  so. 
Another,  that  it  would  yet  be  more  excellent  if  all  the  fathers  of  families 
were  so.     And,  lastly,  another,  that  it  were  much  more  to  be  desired  that 


Letter  V.]  HISTORICAL   DIFFICULTIES.  479 

The  method  of  reasoning,  consequently,  from  expediency 
to  fact  is  fallacious  and  unsafe;  and  if  the  magnificent  pre- 
tensions of  your  sect  rest  upon  no  firmer  basis  than  deceit- 
ful notions  of  utility  and  convenience,  they  are  indeed  built 
ui)on  the  sand.  Instead  of  a  solid  and  a  noble  fabric  of 
imposing  strength  and  commanding  grandeur,  you  present 
us  with  a  structure  as  weak  and  contemptible  as  the  toy- 
houses  of  children  constructed  of  cards. 

There  are  no  less  than  three  different  opinions  entertained 
in  your  Church  as  to  the  organ  through  which  its  infalli- 
bility is  exercised  or  manifested.  This  single  circumstance 
is  enough  to  involve  the  whole  claim  in  contempt.  If  it 
be  not  infallibly  certain  where  the  infallible  tribunal  is,  in 
case  of  emergency,  to  be  found,  the  old  logical  maxim  ap- 
plies with  undiminished  force,  de  non  appaf^entibus  et  non 
existenfibus  eadem  est  ratio.  To  settle  controversies  it  is  not 
enough  that  a  judge  exists;  his  existence  must  be  known 
and  his  court  accessible.  Uncertainty  as  to  the  seat  of  an 
infallible  authority  is  just  as  fatal  to  the  legitimate  exercise 
of  its  functions  as  uncertainty  in  regard  to  the  being  of  the 
authority  in  the  abstract.  To  resolve  our  doubts  and  re- 
move our  difficulties  some  of  your  doctors  refer  us  to  the 
Pope  as  the  vicar  of  Christ,  thQ  head  of  the  Church,  the 
teacher  of  the  faithful,  and  plead  the  decisions  of  councils 
in  behalf  of  his  pretensions.  As  the  centre  of  unity  to  the 
Church  and  the  fountain  or  source  of  ecclesiastical  power, 
they  represent  him  as  possessed  of  an  authority  as  absolute 
as  that  "with  which  the  head  controls  the  members  of  the 

every  man  and  every  woman  wei-e  so:  just  as  much  as  tlie  prevention  of 
controversies  is  better  than  the  decision  of  them,  and  tlie  prevention  of 
heresies  better  than  the  condemnation  of  them;  and  upon  this  ground, 
conclude  by  your  own  very  consequence  that  not  only  a  general  council, 
nor  only  the  Pope,  but  all  the  patriarchs,  archbishops,  bishops,  pastors, 
fathers,  nay,  all  men  in  the  world,  are  infallible.  If  you  say  now,  as  I 
am  sure  you  will,  that  this  conclusion  is  most  gross  and  absurd,  against 
8ense  and  experience,  then  must  also  the  ground  be  false  from  which  it 
evidently  and  undeniably  follows — viz. :  that  that  course  of  dealing  with 
men  seems  always  more  fit  to  Divine  Providence  which  seems  most  fit 
to  human  reason." — Chillingworth,  vol.  i.,  p.  249;  Oxford  edition  of  1838. 


480     ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.   [Letter  V. 

body.  Hence,  your  bishops  are  nothing  but  his  vicars; 
and  in  token  of  their  bondage  they  are  not  content  with 
the  usual  oaths  of  allegiance  by  which  subjects  are  held  in 
obedience  to  their  sovereign,  but  they  enter  into  a  solemn 
obligation  to  appear  personally  before  him  every  three  years 
to  give  an  account  of  their  stewardship,  or  else  to"  excuse 
themselves  by  an  adequate  deputy.  "As  in  a  disciplined 
army,"  says  Dr.  Milner,  a  modern  writer  of  your  sect,  in  a 
charge  which,  though  intrinsically  Avorthless,  excited  too 
much  controversy  to  be  speedily  forgotten — "as  in  a  disci- 
plined army  the  soldiers  obey  their  officers,  and  these,  other 
officers  of  superior  rank,  who  themselves  are  subject  to  a 
commander-in-chief,  so  in  the  Catholic  Church,  extending, 
as  it  does,  from  the  rising  to  the  setting  sun,  the  faithful 
of  all  nations  are  guided  by  their  pastors,  who  in  their 
turns  are  submissive  to  the  prelates,  lohilst  the  whole  body  is 
subordinate  to  one  supreme  pastor,  Avhose  seat  is  the  rally ing- 
point  and  centre  of  them  all."  In  this  exquisite  system  of 
slavery  the  Pope  is  evidently  the  sovereign  authority — the 
whole  body  is  subordinate  to  him,  and  whatever  infallibility 
the  Church  possesses,  it  must  be  found  in  the  person  of  her 
supreme  pastor  as  the  centre  and  rallying-point  of  the  whole. 
Under  any  other  theory  of  infallibility  this,  it  may  be  well 
to  remark,  is  and  must  be  the  practical  working  of  your 
system.  Your  leading  maxim  is  obedience;  there  must  be 
no  investigation  of  the  right  to  command,  no  regard  to  the 
propriety  of  the  precepts;  the  whole  duty  of  the  people  is 
summed  up  in  a  single  word,  obey.  This  system  of  absolute 
submission  runs  itp  unchecked  until  it  terminates  in  the 
Sovereign  Pontiff  at  Rome,  whose  edicts  and  decrees,  by 
necessary  consequence,  none  can  question,  and  who  is  there- 
fore the  absolute  lord  of  Papal  faith.  This  seems  to  be  the 
inevitable  result  of  that  slavish  doctrine  of  passive  obedience 
which  your  pastors  inculcate,  and  without  which  your  Church 
would  expire  in  a  day.  Hence,  whether  you  lodge  infalli- 
bility with  councils,  with  the  body  of  the  pastors  at  large, 
or  give  the  Pope  an  ultimate  veto  upon  the  decisions  of 


Letter  V.]  HISTORICAL   DIFFICULTIES.  481 

oecumenical  synods,  to  this  complexion,  under  the  theory  of 
implicit  obedience,  it  must  unavoidably  come  at  last;  and 
the  practical  impression  upon  the  people  will  be  precisely 
that  M'hich,  we  are  told  by  intelligent  travellers,  prevails  in 
Italy — "  the  Pope  is  greater  than  God."  ^ 

It  is  evident  that  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope  cannot  be 
separated  from  his  claim  to  supremacy.  To  prove  that  he 
is  not  sup'eme  is,  in  other  words,  to  prove  that  he  is  not  in- 
fallible. Now,  to  those  who  maintain  that  the  infallible 
authority  o'f  the  Church  is  to  be  sought  in  the  person  of 
his  Holiness,  this  serious  historical  difficulty  arises :  Where 
was  that  infallibility  before  a  Supreme  Pastor  existed  ?  It  is 
a  fact  sustained  by  the  very  amplest  testimony  that  as  late, 
at  least,  as  the  seventh  century,  the  bishops  of  the  Church, 
not  excepting  the  bishops  of  Rome,  whatever  accidental  dif- 
ferences prevailed  among  them,  were  regarded  at  least  as 
officially  equal.  According  to  Jerome,  every  bishop,  whether 
of  Rome,  Eugubium,  Constantinople,  Rhegium,  Alexandria 
or  Tanis,  possessed  the  same  merit  and  the  same  priesthood.^ 
"  There  is  but  one  bishopric  in  the  Church,"  says  Cyprian, 
"  and  every  bishop  has  an  undivided  portion  in  it ;"  ^  that  is, 
it  is  one  office,  and  the  power  of  all  who  are  invested  with 
it  is  precisely  the  same.  In  his  letter  to  Pope  Stephen  this 
doctrine  is  still  more  distinctly  announced,  but  it  is  fully 
brought  out  in  the  speech  which  he  delivered  at  the  opening 
of  the  great  Council  of  Carthage.  "  For  no  one  of  us," 
says  he,  "  makes  himself  bishop  of  bishops,  and  compels  his 
colleagues,  by  tyrannical  power,  to  a  necessity  of  comply- 
ing ;  forasmuch  as  every  bishop,  according  to  the  liberty  and 
power  that  is  granted  him,  is  free  to  act  as  he  sees  fit ;  and 

^  "II  papa  e  piii  die  Dio  per  noi  altri." — For  a  remarkable  account  of 
the  extravagant  adulation  which  has  been  heaped  upon  the  Popes,  see 
Erasmus  on  1  Tim.  i.  6. 

'  Epist.  ci.,  ad  Evang. — Ubicunque  fuerit  Episcopus,  sive  RoniEe,  sive 
Eugubii,  sive  Constantinopoli,  sive  Rhegii,  sive  Alexandria,  sive  Tanis, 
ejusdum  meriti,  ejusdem  est  et  Sacerdotii. 

3  De  Unitat.  Eccles.     Episcopatus  unus  est,  cujus  a  singulis  in  solidum 
pars  tenetur.  ^  v. 
Vol.  III.— 31 


482     ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.   [Letter  V. 

can  no  more  be  judged  by  others  than  he  can  judge  them. 
But  let  us  all  expect  the  judgment  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Clirist, 
who  only  hath  power  both  to  invest  us  with  the  government 
of  His  Church  and  to  pass  sentence  upon  our  actions." 

But  an  authority  which  ought  to  be  decisive  on  this  ques- 
tion is  to  be  found  in  the  testimony  of  Gregory  the  Great, 
who  was  filled  with  horror  at  the  arrogant  pretensions  of  the 
patriarch  of  Constantinople  to  be  treated  as  a  universal 
bishop,  and  in  the  strongest  terms  reprobated  the  idea  that 
any  such  title  could  be  lawfully  applied  to  any  person  what- 
ever.^ 

During  these  six  centuries  in  which  the  Church  was  with- 
out a  visible  head,  when  there  was  neither  centre  of  unity 
nor  rallying-point  to  the  whole,  when,  in  the  modern  sense, 
there  was  no  such  thing  as  a  pope,  where  was  the  infallibility 
of  the  body  ?  Most  evidently  it  could  not  have  been  in  the 
bishop  of  Rome;  he  was  not  then  what  he  is  now;  and 
those  who  contend  that  he  constitutes  now  the  infallible 
tribunal  of  the  Church  are  reduced  to  the  awkward  neces- 
sity of  maintaining  either  that  there  was  then  no  infallible 
tribunal  at  all,  or  that  it  has  since  been  transferred  from  its 
ancient  seat  to  the  person  of  the  Pope.  If  the  latter  alter- 
native should  be  assumed,  upon  what  grounds  and  by  what 
authority  was  the  transfer  made  ?  When,  where  and  how  ? 
These  are  questions  which  require  to  be  answered  with  ab- 
solute certainty  before  we  can  have  any  absolute  certainty 
that  the  bishop  of  Rome  is  not  as  liable  to  error  now  as  he 
was  in  the  days  of  Firmilian.^ 

The  theory  which  lodges  infallibility  with  general  coun- 
cils is  pressed  with  historical  difficulties  just  as  strong  as 
those  which  lie  against  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope.     If  you 

^  Epist.,  lib.  vi.,  epist.  30. — Ego  fidenter  dico,  quod  quisquis  se  Universa- 
lem  Sacerdotem  vocat  vel  vocari  desiderat,  in  elatione  sua,  Antichristum 
prjecurrit.  "  I  affirm  with  confidence  that  whoever  calls  himself,  or  wishes 
to  be  called  universal  BiKhop,  in  this  lifting  up  of  himself  is  the  forerunner 
of  Antichrist." 

-  See  his  Epistle  to  Pope  Stephen,  charging  him  both  with  error  and 
echism. — Ci/priani  EpiPtolcc,  cp.  Ixxv. 


Letter  V.]  HISTORICAL    DIFFICULTIES.  483 

except  the  Synod  at  Jerusalem  in  the  age  of  the  Apostles, 
which  can  hardly  be  called  oeciimenical  or  general,  there  was 
no  such  thing  as  a  general  council  of  the  Church  until  the 
first  quarter  of  the  fourth  century.  For  two  hundred  years, 
consequently,  after  the  last  of  the  Apostles  had  fallen  asleep, 
the  Church  had  neglected  to  speak,  though  numerous  and 
dangerous  heresies  had  been  industriously  circulated,  through 
the  only  organ  by  which  she  could  pronounce  an  infallible 
decision.  During  all  that  time  she  was  shorn  of  her 
strength.  Is  it  probable,  is  it  credible,  that  while  the  most 
fatal  errors  were  disseminated  in  regard  to  the  person  of 
Christ,  and  the  wildest  vagaries  were  indulged  by  the  Mon- 
tanists  and  Gnostics,  there  existed  an  authority  to  which  the 
whole  Church  deferred  as  sujareme,  and  which  by  a  single 
word  was  competent  to  crush  these  growing  delusions? 
Why  did  the  Fathers  ply  so  strenuously  the  strong  argu- 
ments of  scriptural  truth,  the  words  and  teachings  of 
Prophets  and  Apostles,  if  there  was  indeed  a  stronger  ar- 
gument to  which  they  might  resort,  and  from  whose  decision 
there  was  no  appeal?  A  judge  that  neglects  to  act  in 
critical  emergencies  just  at  the  time  when  his  authority  is 
needed  is  little  to  be  preferred  to  no  judge  at  all. 

There  is  still  another  historical  fact  which  it  is  difficult 
to  reconcile  with  synodical  supremacy.  The  early  councils 
attributed  the  authority  of  the  canons  which  they  settled  to 
the  sanction  of  the  emperor.  They  pretended  to  no  infalli- 
ble jurisdiction ;  their  decrees  were  not  set  forth  as  the  Word 
of  God ;  the  veto  of  the  emperor  destroyed  them ;  his 
favour  made  them  obligatory  as  far  as  his  power  extended.^ 
Were  the  Apostles  thus  helpless  without  the  imperial  sanc- 
tion? Did  their  instructions  acquire  the  force  of  Divine 
laws  from  the  favour  of  Xero  or  the  patronage  of  the  Cae- 
sars? If  the  councils  were  as  infallible  as  the  Apostles, 
why  did  they  not  proclaim  their  edicts  in  the  name  of  God, 
and,  whether  the  emperors  approved  or  condemned,  main- 
tain their  absolute  power  to  bind  the  conscience  by  the  au- 
^  See  Barrow,  Suprem.  Pope,  and  passages  referred  to,  Suppos.  6. 


484     ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.   [Lktter  V. 

thority  of  Christ?  These  councils  were  evidently  expedi- 
ents of  peace,  adopted  by  the  government  as  well  as  by  the 
Church  for  the  purpose  of  securing  uniformity  of  faith  and 
preventing  religious  disturbances  in  the  empire.  They 
were  not  regarded  as  the  unerring  representatives  of  Christ ; 
the  deference  paid  to  the  writings  of  the  Apostles  was  never 
paid  to  them ;  they  were  not  acknowledged  as  the  organ  of 
the  Spirit.  Others,  again,  maintain  that  no  council  is  infal- 
lible whose  convocation  and  decisions  have  not  alike  re- 
ceived the  sanction  of  the  Pope.  These  persons  are  truly 
in  a  sad  dilemma  ;  for  all  the  early  councils  were  confessedly 
convened  by  the  mandate  of  the  emperor,  and  many  were 
acknowledged  as  authoritative  in  their  own  day  whose  canons 
were  opposed  by  the  bishop  of  Rome.  According  to  this 
principle,  there  was  no  such  thing  as  infallibility  in  the 
Church  until  the  Pope  acquired  the  dominion  of  an  earthly 
prince,  and  could  assemble  the  subjects  of  the  realm  from 
different  quarters  of  the  globe  by  his  own  sovereign 
authority.^ 

If,  as  a  last  desperate  resort  against  all  these  historical 
objections,  it  should  be  asserted  that  the  unanimous  consent 
of  all  the  pastors  of  the  Church  was  a  sufficient  proof  of 
the  infallible  truth  of  any  system  of  doctrines,  the  question 
might  still  be  asked,  whether  such  unanimity  has  ever  pre- 
vailed, and  how  in  reference  to  any  given  point  it  can  be 
ascertained.  The  idea  of  reaching  the  truth  by  a  system 
of  eclecticism,  collecting  only  the  doctrines  which  have  never 
been  disputed,  is  utterly  unworthy  of  a  rational  understand- 
ing. It  proceeds  upon  the  wholly  gratuitous  assumption 
that  nothing  important  has  ever  been  denied,  or  nothing 
evidently  true  has  ever  been  questioned.  The  history  of 
religion,  however,  affords  the  most  abundant  proof  that  the 
vanity  of  man,  even  apart  from  considerations  of  interest, 
may  be  an  adequate  motive  for  attacking  the  most  sacred 
opinions  and  the  most  venerable  institutions,  while  others 
less  important  are  protected  from  insult  by  their  acknow- 
^  See  Barrow,  Siiprcni.  Pope,  and  passages  referred  to,  Suppos.  6. 


Lv:tteu  v.]  historical   DIFFICULTIES.  485 

ledged  insignificance.  Such  is  the  weakness  of  humanity 
that  fame  is  often  more  precious  than  truth,  and  lie  who 
cannot  hope  to  rise  to  distinction  by  contributing  to  the 
general  fund  of  human  knowledge  is  sometimes  tempted  to 
seek  notoriety  from  the  profane  attempt  to  demolish  the 
temple  erected  by  the  labour  of  years.  The  very  grandeur 
of  the  edifice  provokes  the  efforts  of  infatuated  vanity.  To 
suppose,  consequently,  that  those  doctrines  of  religion  are 
alone  infallibly  true  which  have  met  with  universal  appro- 
bation is  to  overlook  the  weakness  and  folly  of  man,  and  to 
attribute  to  his  conduct  in  regard  to  religion  a  wisdom  and 
propriety  which  the  history  of  the  past  by  no  means  sus- 
tains. It  is  much  more  natural  to  suppose  that  the  most 
important  truths  should  be  the  subjects  of  the  fiercest  con- 
tentions, that  ambitious  churchmen  who  had  been  defeated 
in  their  views  of  personal  aggrandizement  should  endeavour 
to  wreak  their  vengeance  and  gratify  their  vanity  by  aim- 
ing their  blows  at  the  very  vitals  of  Christianity.  Hence, 
we  find,  in  fact,  that  a  large  share  of  the  distractions  of 
Christendom,  the  most  pestiferous  and  deadly  errors,  have 
owed  their  origin  to  the  spleen  and  mortification  of  their 
authors.  How  much,  too,  ambition,  the  master-sin  by 
which  angels  fell,  has  corrupted  the  Church  and  perverted 
the  right  ways  of  the  Lord,  the  whole  history  of  the  Papacy 
abundantly  attests.  Arius  failed  in  obtaining  a  bishopric, 
and  vented  his  malignity  in  attacking  the  very  foundation 
of  the  faith.  The  extent  to  which  prejudice,  mere  prejudice, 
prevailed  in  the  controversies  of  the  Iconoclasts  and  Mono- 
thelites  is  an  amusing  commentary  on  the  harmony  of 
priests  in  fundamental  doctrines ;  and  there  is  an  instance 
on  record  of  a  famous  interpreter  wlio  confessedly  distorted 
a  passage  of  Scripture  from  its  just  and  obvious  meaning 
because  the  leader  of  another  sect  had  endorsed  it  in  his 
commentaries.  A  man,  consequently,  who  should  act  upon 
the  famous  maxim,  quod  semper,  quod  ubique,  quod  ab  omni- 
bus, in  the  formation  of  his  creed,  and  resolve  to  admit 
nothinsr  as  infallible  truth  which  had  not  the  mark  of  uni- 


486     ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.   [Letter  V. 

versal  consent,  might  condense  his  articles  in  a  very  narrow 
compass.  Not  a  single  distinctive  feature  of  revelation  upon 
this  absurd  hypothesis  would  be  regarded  as  an  essential 
element  of  faith.  The  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures 
has  been  confessedly  denied  by  distinguished  divines,  whole 
books  of  the  Bible  have  been  ruthlessly  discarded  from  the 
Canon,  and  even  poj)es  themselves  are  said  to  have  treated 
the  history  of  Jesus  as  a  gainful  fable.  It  is  important, 
therefore,  to  believe  nothing  about  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures !  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  has  been  bitterly 
assailed,  the  incarnation  of  the  Redeemer  openly  derided, 
and  the  work  of  the  Spirit  denounced  as  enthusiasm.  While 
one  council  has  determined  that  Christ  was  the  eternal  Son 
of  the  Father,  another  with  equal  pretensions  to  infallibility 
has  decided  against  His  Divinity.  Nothing,  therefore,  is 
infallibly  certain  about  the  person  of  Christ,  and  a  man 
may  be  a  very  good  Catholic,  according  to  the  maxim  in 
question,  w  ithout  any  opinion  of  the  Saviour  at  all !  Nay, 
the  very  being  of  God  may  be  lawfully  discarded  from  a 
creed  collected  in  this  way,  since  the  successors  of  the  Fish- 
erman, unless  they  are  greatly  belied,  have  not  occasionally 
scrupled  to  indulge  in  skeptical  doubts  upon  this  prime 
article  of  religion  !  This  unanimous  consent  of  the  pastors 
of  the  Chui'ch,  therefore,  is  a  mere  phantom  of  the  brain, 
always  mocking  oiir  efforts  to  compass  it,  and  retreating 
before  us  like  the  verge  of  the  horizon.  It  is  "  vox  et  pne- 
terea  nihil." 

But  suppose  such  an  unanimous  consent  existed  in  fact 
in  reference  to  all  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  suppose 
that  no  pastors  of  the  Church  had  ever  been  heretical,  how 
is  an  Indian  or  negro  to  become  acquainted  with  the  testi- 
mony that  embraces  all  the  priests  that  have  ever  said  or 
sung  the  services  of  the  Church,  from  the  age  of  the  Apos- 
tles to  the  period  of  his  own  existence  ?  To  achieve  such 
a  task  w^ould  require  a  critical  apparatus  hardly  less  formid- 
able than  that  which  you  pronounce  to  be  essential  to  the 
settlement  of  the  Canon. 


Letter  V.]  HISTORICAL   DIFFICULTIES.  487 

I  have  now  reviewed  the  leading  theories  in  regard  to 
the  seat  of  the  infallibility  of  your  Church  which  have 
been  maintained  among  you,  and  have  shown  them  to  be 
encompassed  with  historical  difficulties  fatal  to  their  truth. 
There  is  one  general  objection  of  the  same  kind  which  covers 
them  all,  and  which,  upon  the  approved  principle  of  logic, 
that  two  contradictories  cannot  possibly  both  be  true,  would 
seem  to  settle  the  matter.  It  is  indubitably  certain  that 
popes  have  contradicted  popes,  councils  have  contradicted 
councils,  and  pastors  have  contradicted  pastors,  and  all  have 
contradicted  the  Scriptures.  Notwithstanding  your  vain 
boasts  of  the  unchanging  uniformity  of  your  system,  and 
the  perfect  consistency  and  harmony  of  the  doctrines  of 
faith  which  your  Church  in  every  age  has  inculcated,  it  is 
still  historically  true  that  you  have  exhibited  at  different 
periods  such  variety  of  tenets  as  to  render  you  wonderfully 
like  the  administration  of  Lord  Chatham  as  inimitably 
described  by  Burke.  Your  syntagma  confessionwn  Avould 
present  a  scene  "  so  checkered  and  speckled ;  a  piece  of 
joinery  so  crossly  indented  and  whimsically  dovetailed ;  a 
cabinet  so  variously  inlaid;  such  a  piece  of  diversified 
mosaic,  such  a  tesselated  pavement  without  cement — here  a 
bit  of  black  stone,  and  there  a  bit  of  white — that  it  might 
be  indeed  a  very  curious  show,  but  utterly  unsafe  to  touch 
and  unsure  to  stand  on." 

In  the  short  compass  of  twenty-three  years,  to  give  a 
specimen  of  your  wonderful  consistency,  we  have  idolatry 
both  abolished  and  established  by  the  councils  of  a  Church 
which,  according  to  Bossuet,  never  varies — the  Council  of 
Constantinople  unanimously  decreeing  the  removal  of  im- 
ages and  the  abolition  of  image-worship,  and  the  second 
Council  of  Nice  re-establishing  both,  and  pronouncing  an 
anathema  on  all  who  had  concurred  in  the  previous  decision. 
The  second  Council  of  Ephesus  approved  and  sanctioned 
the  impiety  of  Eutyches,  and  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  con- 
demned it.  The  fourth  Council  of  Lateran  asserted  the 
doctrine  of  a  physical  change  in  the  eucharistic  elements. 


488     ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.   [Letter  V. 

in  express  contradiction  to  the  teachings  of  the  Primitive 
Church,  and  the  evident  declarations  of  the  Apostles  of  the 
Lord.  The  second  Council  of  Orange  gave  its  sanction  to 
some  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  the  school  of  Augustine, 
and  the  Council  of  Trent  threw  the  Church  into  the  arms 
of  Pelagius.  Thus,  at  different  periods  every  type  -of  doc- 
trine has  prevailed  in  the  bosom  of  an  unchangeable  Church. 
She  has  been  distracted  with  every  variety  of  sect,  tormented 
with  every  kind  of  controversy,  convulsed  with  every  spe- 
cies of  heresy,  and  at  last  has  settled  down  upon  a  platform 
which  annihilates  the  Word  of  God,  denounces  the  doc- 
trines of  Christ  and  His  Apostles,  and  bars  the  gates  of 
salvation  against  men. 

That  the  Scriptures,  and  not  the  priesthood  or  any  infalli- 
ble body  of  men,  were  the  only  channels  through  which  an 
infallible  knowledge  of  Divine  truth  was  to  be  acquired,  is 
so  clearly  the  doctrine  of  the  Primitive  Church,  which  was 
founded  by  the  hands  of  the  Apostles  themselves,  as  to  be 
absolutely  fatal  to  any  of  the  forms  in  which  the  pretensions 
of  Rome  are  asserted.  Among  the  host  of  testimonies  that 
might  be  adduced  to  establish  and  corroborate  this  vital 
point  the  following  may  be  deemed  a  sufficient  exposition 
of  the  views  of  the  Fathers :  "  Look  not,"  says  Chrysos- 
tom,  "  for  any  other  teacher ;  you  have  the  oracles  of  God ; 
no  one  can  teach  like  them.  Any  other  instructor  may  from 
some  erroneous  principle  conceal  from  you  many  things  of 
the  greatest  importance,  and  therefore  I  exhort  you  to  pro- 
cure for  yourselves  Bibles.  Have  them  for  your  constant 
instructors,  and  in  all  your  trials  have  recourse  to  them  for 
the  remedies  you  need."  ^ 

"  It  behooveth,"  says  Basil,  "  that  every  word  and  every 
work  should  be  accredited  by  the  testimony  of  the  inspired 
Scripture."  ^  "  It  is  the  duty  of  hearers,"  he  observes  again, 
"  when  they  have  been  instructed  in  the  Scriptures,  to  try 

^  See  also  Chrysostom's  3d  Horn,  de  Laz.     The  truth  is,  a  volume  might 
be  collected  from  this  Father  in  support  of  my  position. 
*  Moralia,  Eegula  xxvi. 


Letter  V.]  HISTORICAL    DIFFICULTIES.  489 

and  examine  by  them  the  things  spoken  by  their  teachers, 
to  receive  whatever  is  consonant  to  those  Scriptures,  and  to 
reject  whatever  is  alien."  ^  "  Without  the  Word,"  says 
Clemens  Alexandrinus,  "  all  religious  investigation  is  vain ; 
the  holy  prophetic  Scriptures  are  the  foundation  of  religious 
truth,  the  rule  of  life,  the  high  road  to  salvation,"^ 

"  Whence,"  says  Cyprian,  "  is  this  tradition  [alluding  to 
a  pretended  tradition  of  Stephen,  bishop  of  Rome]  ?  Is  it 
delivered  down  to  us  on  the  authority  of  the  Lord  and  of 
the  Gospel,  or  from  the  precepts  and  writings  of  the  Apos- 
tles? For  God  Himself  testifies  that  those  things  which 
are  ivritten  are  to  be  observed.  Josh.  i.  8.  And  the  Lord, 
sending  his  Apostles,  commands  the  nations  to  be  baptized 
and  to  be  taught  to  observe  whatsoever  He  has  commanded. 
If,  therefore,  it  be  prescribed  in  the  Gospel  or  contained  in  the 
Epistles  or  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  by  all  means  let  this  Divine 
and  holy  tradition  be  observed.  What  obstinacy,  what  pre- 
sumption, to  prefer  the  tradition  of  men  to  the  Divine  or- 
dinance, without  considering  that  God  is  angry  and  pro- 
voked whenever  human  tradition  breaks  and  overlooks  the 
Divine  commands!"'' 

In  the  Scriptures,  then,  according  to  these  venerable  men, 
and  in  the  Scriptures  alone,  we  possess  the  charter  of  our 
faith,  pure  and  uncorrupted  as  it  came  from  the  inspired 
breasts  of  the  Apostles ;  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  moving 
these  chosen  ambassadors  of  Christ  to  commit  His  infallible 
teachings  to  imperishable  records,  secured  that  certainty  in 
the  transmission  of  Christian  doctrine  which  completely 
obviates  the  necessity  of  an  infallible  body  of  men.  Here 
is,  according  to  the  Fathers,  what  all  history  shows  the 
priesthood  of  Rome  is  not — a  safe,  wise,  adequate,  successful 
provision  against  the  error  and  change-making  tendency  of 
man. 

I  need  not  add  that  this  appears  to  be  the  uniform  doc- 
trine of  the  Scriptures  themselves ;  not  only  do  they  assert 

^  Moralia,  Reg.  Ixxii.  2  Admon.  to  the  Gentiles. 

'  Epist.  Ixxiv.  Pompeio,  §2  ii.  iii. 


490     ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.   [Letter  Y. 

their  own  sufficiency  and  completeness  as  a  rule  of  faith, 
but  that  they  were  written  with  the  design  of  handing 
down,  in  their  integrity  and  purity,  the  doctrines  which  the 
Apostles  taught  and  the  early  Christians  received.  The 
Evangelist  Luke,  in  recording  the  motives  which  induced 
him  to  commit  his  Gospel  to  writing,  states  distinctly  that 
his  object  was  that  the  "certainty"  of  those  things  which 
had  been  previously  communicated  by  oral  teaching  might 
be  fully  a])prehended.  He  proceeds  upon  the  just  and 
natural  principle  that  written  documents  presented  a  safer 
channel  for  the  transmission  of  truth  than  verbal  tra- 
dition. Peter,  when  about  to  put  oif  his  mortal  tabernacle, 
makes  provision  for  perpetuating  the  faith  after  his  decease 
by  W7'itwg  his  second  Epistle.  Here  Avas  the  time  and  here 
was  the  place  for  the  pretended  founder  of  the  Papacy  to 
assert  the  prerogatives  of  his  see.  But  not  a  word  does  he 
utter  of  living  teachers — of  any  infallible  tribunal  composed 
of  men.  To  his  mind  written,  memorials  were  the  true  se- 
curity for  preserving  entire  apostolical  instructions.^     But 

^  "  The  claim  of  infallibility,  or  even  authority,  to  prescribe  magisterially 
to  the  opinions  and  consciences  of  men,  whether  in  an  individual  or  in 
assemblies  and  collections  of  men,  is  never  to  be  admitted.  Admitted, 
said  I  ?  It  is  not  to  be  heard  with  patience,  unless  it  be  supported  by  a 
miracle ;  and  this  very  text  of  Scripture  (2  Pet.  i.  20,  21)  is  manifestly,  of 
all  others,  the  most  adverse  to  the  arrogant  pretensions  of  the  Koman 
Pontiff.  Had  it  been  the  intention  of  God  that  Christians,  after  the  death 
of  the  Apostles,  should  take  the  sense  of  Scripture,  in  all  obscure  and 
doubtful  passages,  from  the  mouth  of  an  infallible  interpreter,  whose  de- 
cisions in  all  points  of  doctrine,  faith  and  pi-actice  should  be  oracular  and 
final,  this  was  the  occasion  for  the  Apostle  to  have  mentioned  it,  to  have 
told  us  plainly  whither  we  should  resort  for  the  unerring  explication  of 
those  prophecies  which,  it  seems,  so  well  deserve  to  be  studied  and  under- 
stood. And  from  St.  Peter,  in  particular,  of  all  the  Apostles,  this  infor- 
mation wa-s  in  all  reason  to  be  expected,  if,  as  the  vain  tradition  goes,  the 
oracular  gift  was  to  be  lodged  with  his  successors.  This,  too,  was  the 
time  when  the  mention  of  the  thing  was  most  likely  to  occur  to  the  Apos- 
tle's thoughts,  when  he  was  about  to  be  removed  from  the  superintendence 
of  the  Church,  and  was  composing  an  Epistle  for  the  direction  of  the 
flock  which  he  so  ftiithfully  had  fed,  after  his  departure.  Yet  St.  Peter, 
at  this  critical  season,  when  his  mind  was  filled  with  an  interested  care 
for  the  welfare  of  the  Church  after  his  decease,  upon  an  occasion  which 


Letter  V.]  HISTORICAL    DIFFICULTIES.  491 

the  grand  and  fatal  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  infallibility, 
in  whatever  form  it  is  asserted,  is,  that  it  is  totally  destitute 
of  the  only  kind  of  proof  by  which  it  can  be  possibly  sup- 
ported. To  exempt  a  single  individual  or  any  body  of 
men  from  the  possibility  of  error  is  the  exclusive  preroga- 
tive of  God.  It  depends  upon  Him,  therefore,  and  upon 
Him  alone,  to  declare  whether  He  has  granted  this  distinc- 
tion to  the  Popes  of  Rome,  the  councils  of  the  Church,  or 
the  whole  body  of  its  pastors.  This  is  a  fact  which  can 
only  be  substantiated  by  a  Divine  revelation.  This  is  the  sort 
of  evidence  which  the  case  requires,  and  without  such  evi- 
dence all  such  pretensions  are  vain,  delusive,  arrogant  and 
blasphemous.  Abstract  reasoning  can  avail  nothing ;  there 
must  be  a  plain  declaration  from  the  Lord.  Where,  I  ask, 
and  ask  triumphantly,  is  such  a  declaration  to  be  found? 
Where  has  God  confirmed  by  miracles  the  extravagant 
claims  of  the  Papal  community?  To  look  for  it  in  the 
Scriptures  would  involve  the  supposition  that  the  Scriptures 
are  already  known  to  be  inspired — the  proof  would  become 
destructive  of  the  end  for  which  it  was  sought.  Papists  tell 
us  that  Ave  cannot  be  assured  that  the  Scriptures  are  di- 
vinely inspired  until  we  are  assured  that  the  decisions  of 
the  Church  are  infallible.  It  would  be,  then,  most  prepos- 
terous in  them  to  remand  us  to  the  Scriptures  to  prove  their 
claims,  when  the  only  authenticity  they  ascribe  to  the  Scrip- 
tures is  derived  from  these  claims.  Still,  we  may  safely 
challenge  them  to  produce  from  the  Bible  a  single  passage 
which  directly  asserts  or  by  necessary  implication  involves 
the  proposition — either  that  the  Pope,  in  his  official  rela- 

might  naturally  lead  him  to  mention  all  means  of  instruction  that  were 
likely  to  be  provided, — in  these  circumstances  St.  Peter  gives  not  the  most 
distant  intimation  of  a  living  oracle  to  be  perpetually  maintained  in  the 
succession  of  the  Eoman  bishops.  On  the  contrary,  he  overthrows  their 
aspiring  claims  by  doing  that  which  supersedes  the  supposed  necessity  of 
any  such  institution ;  he  lays  down  a  plain  rule,  which,  judiciously  ap- 
l)lied,  may  enable  every  private  Christian  to  interpret  the  written  oracles 
of  prophecy  in  all  points  of  general  importance  for  himself." — Horsley's 
Sermons,  vol.  i.,  Serm.  15. 


492      ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.    [Lktter  V. 

tions,  is  an  infallible  expounder  of  the  faitli,  or  that 
general  councils  are  unerring  in  their  decisions,  or  that  the 
whole  body  of  pastors  shall  be  preserved  inviolably  from 
error.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  worthy  to  be  noticed  how  the 
Ephesian  elders  are  solemnly  assured  that  from  even  among 
themselves,  among  the  very  teachers  of  the  Church,  griev- 
ous wolves  should  arise,  not  sparing  the  flock.  And  the 
voice  of  all  history — though  the  Bible  says  nothing  spe- 
cifically about  them,  as  never  contemplating  such  a  phe- 
nomenon— the  voice  of  all  history  abundantly  attests  that 
councils  have  erred,  and  so  dissipates  the  idle  fiction  of  their 
infallibility.  Is  there,  then,  any  other  revelation  beside  the 
Sacred  Oracles  from  which  the  infallibility  of  the  Church 
may  be  gathered?  What  messenger  has  ever  been  com- 
missioned to  proclaim  this  truth,  and  to  seal  his  com- 
mission by  miraculous  achievements  ?  Where  has  the  voice 
of  God  ever  commanded  us  to  submit  to  Rome  as  His  rep- 
resentative and  vicar?  Where  are  the  Divine  credentials 
of  Papal  infallibility  ?  Until  these  questions  are  satisfac- 
torily answered,  Rome  must  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  an 
impostor,  assuming  to  herself  that  supreme  deference  which 
is  due  exclusively  to  the  Spirit  of  God.  Her  pretensions 
must  be  regarded  as  the  offspring  of  fraud,  engendered  by 
ambition  and  nurtured  by  interest,  which  none  can  acknow- 
ledge without  treason  against  God  and  perdition  to  them- 
selves. Like  the  harlot  in  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  she 
stands  arrayed  in  gaudy  attire  to  beguile  the  simple,  but 
her  feet  take  hold  on  death  and  her  steps  lead  down  to  hell. 


Letter  VI.l      INFALLIBILITY  AND  SKEPTICISM.  493 

LETTER    VL 

INFALLIBILITY  AND  SKEPTICISM. 

To  abandon  the  exercise  of  private  judgment,  and  intrust 
the  understanding  to  the  guidance  of  teachers  arrogant 
enough  to  claim  infallibility  without  producing  the  creden- 
tials of  a  Divine  commission,  is  to  encourage  a  despotism 
which  none  can  sanction  without  the  express  authority  of 
God.  Private  judgment,  indeed,  can  never  be  wholly  set 
aside;  the  pretensions  of  an  infallible  instructor  must  be 
submitted  to  the  understandings  of  men,  and  finally  de- 
termined by  each  man's  convictions  of  truth  and  justice. 
The  ultimate  appeal  must  be  to  that  very  reason  which,  in 
its  independent  exercise,  is  dreaded  as  the  parent  of  so 
much  mischief,  the  prolific  source  of  so  much  schism.  It  is 
a  circumstance,  however,  not  sufficiently  regarded  that  the 
pretensions  of  Rome  to  that  degree  of  inspiration  which  she 
arrogantly  claims  cannot  be  admitted  without  striking  at 
the  basis  of  all  human  knowledge,  confounding  the  distinc- 
tions of  truth  and  falsehood,  and  laying  the  foundations  of 
a  skepticism  more  malignant  and  desolating  than  the  worst 
calamities  which  can  possibly  result  from  the  free  and  un- 
hampered indulgence  of  private  opinion.  As  extremes  are 
so  intimately  connected  that  the  least  touch  of  the  pencil 
can  translate  expressions  of  joy  into  symptoms  of  sorrow, 
so  those  who  seek  to  remove  the  occasions  of  difference,  to 
terminate  schism,  extinguish  controversy  and  establish  re- 
ligion upon  the  strongest  grounds  of  absolute  certainty,  by 
resorting  to  a  guide  that  claims  infallibility  without  those 
signs  and  wonders  which  indubitably  declare  that  God's 
Spirit  is  in  him  and  God's  hand  upon  him,  pursue  a  course 
having,  in  reality,  a  striking  and  inevitable  tendency  to 
conduct  the  mind  to  a  dreary  and  hopeless  Pyrrhonism. 
There  can  be  no  assurance  of  truth  without  a  corresponding 
confidence  in   our  faculties;  the  light  which  we  enjoy,  the 


494   ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.   [Letter  VI, 

convictions  of  our  minds,  the  appearances  of  things  to  the 
human  understanding, — these  are  to  us  the  measures  of  truth 
and  falsehood.  Whoever  is  not  content  to  receive  the  infor- 
mation of  his  senses,  the  reports  of  his  consciousness  and 
the  evident  conclusions  of  his  own  mind,  deduced  in  con- 
formity with  those  fundamental  laws  of  belief  which  are 
presupposed  in  all  its  operations;  whoever,  in  other  words, 
looks  upon  his  faculties  as  instruments  of  falsehood,  and 
distrusts  the  clearest  exercise  of  his  powers;  whoever  re- 
fuses to  take  upon  trust  what  the  very  constitution  of  his 
nature  inclines  him  to  believe, — must  rest  content  with  the 
cheerless  prospect  of  perpetual  ignorance. 

There  can  be  no  knowledge  without  previous  belief,  de- 
termined by  the  law  of  our  nature,  and  liable  to  no  suspi- 
cions of  deception,  because  ultimately  resolvable  into  the 
veracity  of  God.  There  are  certain  primary  convictions — 
certain  original  principles,  as  Aristotle  calls  them — through 
which  we  know  and  believe  everything  else,  and  which 
must,  therefore,  themselves  be  received  with  paramount 
certainty.  These  instinctive  elements  of  natural  faith  con- 
stitute the  standard  of  evidence,  the  foundation  of  truth, 
the  groundwork  of  knowledge.  Truth  is  the  natural  and 
necessary  aliment  of  the  soul ;  and  the  faculties  of  the  mind, 
in  their  original  constitution,  were  evidently  adjusted  with 
a  special  reference  to  its  pursuit,  investigation  and  enjoy- 
ment. As  the  stability  of  external  nature  responds  harmo- 
niously to  our  instinctive  belief  of  the  uniformity  of  its 
laws,  so  all  the  elements  of  faith  which  enter  into  the  essen- 
tial constitution  of  the  mind  are  as  admirably  and  unerr- 
ingly adapted  to  their  appropriate  objects.  Whatever,  con- 
sequently, has  a  tendency  to  unsettle  a  man's  confidence  in 
the  legitimate  and  natural  exercise  of  his  faculties,  or  to 
call  into  question  what  a  distinguished  philosopher  has  de- 
nominated the  "fundamental  laws  of  human  belief,"  has 
an  equal  tendency  to  introduce  a  general  skepticism,  in 
which  the  distinctions  of  truth  and  falsehood  are  con- 
founded, and  the  elements  of  life  and  dcatli  promiscuously 


liETTER  VI.]       INFALLIBILITY    AND    SKEPTICISM.  495 

mingled.  To  bring  the  different  powers  of  tlic  sonl  into  a 
state  of  unnatural  collision;  to  set  our  faculties  at  war;  to 
involve  their  functions  in  suspicion;  to  make  the  deductions 
of  the  understanding  contradict  the  original  convictions  of 
our  nature, — is  effectually  to  sap  the  foundations  of  know- 
ledge, to  annihilate  all  certainty,  to  reduce  truth  and  false- 
hood to  a  common  insignificance,  and  expose  the  mind  to 
endless  perplexity,  confusion  and  despair.  Now  this  is  pre- 
cisely the  result  which  the  Church  of  Rome  accomplishes 
in  the  minds  of  those  who  are  foolish  enough  to  receive  her 
as  an  infallible  teacher  and  her  instructions  as  infallible 
truth.  She  subverts  the  original  constitution  of  the  mind, 
contradicts  the  primary  and  instinctive  convictions  of  every 
human  understanding,  and  pronounces  that  to  be  absolutely 
certain  which  God,  through  the  essential  principles  of  human 
belief,  declares  to  be  absolutely  false.  She  destroys  the  only 
foundation  of  evidence,  extinguishes  its  light,  surrounds 
her  followers  with  an  artificial  darkness,  and  invites  them 
to  a  repose  from  which  no  voice  of  truth  can  awaken  them, 
no  force  of  argument  arouse  them.  He  that  yields  his 
understanding  to  the  guidance  of  Rome  must  frequently 
meet  with  cases  in  which  the  information  of  his  faculties  is 
clear  and  unambiguous,  and  the  constitution  of  his  nature 
prompts  him  to  one  view,  while  the  infallible  authority  to 
which  he  has  submitted  requires  a  contrary  faith.  Hence, 
if  he  be  consistent,  he  must  follow  his  guide,  because, 
according  to  the  terms  of  the  hypothesis,  the  guide  is  in- 
fiillible,  and  consequently  distrust  the  strongest  convictions 
of  his  own  understanding.  If,  in  such  clear  cases,  the  rea- 
son of  men  deceives  them,  as  deceive  them  it  must  if  the 
teacher  be  indeed  incapable  of  error,  how  shall  it  ever  be 
known  when  to  trust  their  faculties  at  all?  If  they  must 
regard  that  light  which  contradicts  the  sentiments  of  their 
pretended  instructor  as  a  temptation  of  the  Devil,  designed 
in  the  providence  of  God  to  test  their  fidelity,  how  shall 
they  ever  be  able  to  distinguish  these  false  aj^pearances  from 
the  real  illuminations  of  truth?     Is  it  not  evident  that  they 


496   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Letter  VI. 

must  always  be  children  in  understanding,  shrivelled  up  in 
intellectual  dwarfishness  by  a  comfortless  Pyrrhonism — 
ever  learning  and  never  able  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  truth? 

It  is  a  singular  fact  that,  by  pretending  to  infallibility, 
Rome  occupies  the  same  position  in  regard  to  religion  which 
Hume  maintained  in  relation  to  philosophy.^  She  is  a 
skeptical  dogmatist,  and  by  making  the  same  principles 
conduce  to  contradictory  results,  she  virtually  pronounces 
truth  to  be  impossible  and  "  reduces  knowledge  to  zero." 
The  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  for  instance,  cannot  be 
admitted  without  involving  in  uncertainty  the  information 
of  our  senses,  and  rendering  doubtful  the  only  evidence 
upon  which  all  our  conceptions  of  the  phenomena  of  matter 
must  ultimately  depend.  Upon  the  authority  of  Rome  we 
are  required  to  believe  that  what  our  senses  pronounce  to 
be  bread,  what  the  minutest  analysis  which  chemistry  can 
institute  is  able  to  resolve  into  nothing  but  the  constituent 
elements  of  bread,  what  every  sense  pronounces  to  be  ma- 
terial, is  yet  the  incarnate  Son  of  God — soul,  body  and 
Divinity,  full  and  entire,  perfect  and  complete.  Here  Rome 
and  the  senses  are  evidently  at  war;  and  here  that  infallible 
Church  is  made  to  despise  one  of  the  original  principles  of 
belief  which  God  has  impressed  on  the  constitution  of  the 
mind.  If,  in  reference  to  the  magical  wafer,  which  the 
juggling  incantations  of  a  priest  have  transformed  into  the 
person  of  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  our  senses  cannot  be 
regarded  as  worthy  of  our  confidence,  how  are  we  to  know 
when  to  trust  them  at  all  ?  Why  may  not  all  our  impres- 
sions of  colour,  of  touch  and  of  taste  be  just  as  delusive  as 
those  which  deceive  us  in  reference  to  this  bread?  There 
can  be  no  other  evidence  of  any  sensible  phenomenon  than 
is  possessed  of  the  fact  that  the  wafer  is  bread ;  and  if  this 
evidence  is  fallacious  and  uncertain,  the  existence  of  matter 

1  For  a  discussion  of  the  relation  of  the  fundamental  data  of  conscious- 
ness to  the  reality  of  knowledge,  see  Sir  W.  Hamilton's  Article  on  the 
Philosoi)hy  of  Perception,  Discussions  on  Philosophy,  p.  84. 


Letter  VI.]      INFALLIBILITY  AND   SKEPTICISM.  497 

may  be  a  chimera,  or  the  speculation  of  Spinoza  may  not 
be  unsound,  that  only  one  substance  obtains  in  the  universe, 
and  that  substance  is  God.  If  Rome  is  to  be  believed  in 
opposition  to  the  senses,  the  paramount  authority  of  our 
primary  convictions  is  at  once  overthrown;  the  constitution 
of  our  nature  is  rendered  subject  to  suspicion;  the  measures 
of  truth  are  involved  in  perplexity,  and  man  is  set  afloat 
upon  the  boundless  sea  of  speculation  without  chart,  com- 
pass or  rudder.  The  standard  by  which  opinions  must  be 
ultimately  tried  is  called  into  question,  and  the  only  thing 
which  can  be  regarded  as  absolutely  certain  is  the  utter  un- 
certainty of  everything  on  earth.  It  is  intuitively  clear 
that  if  our  faculties  cannot  be  trusted  in  one  case  which 
falls  within  the  sphere  of  their  legitimate  jurisdiction,  they 
cannot  be  trusted  in  another.  If  they  cannot  be  credited 
when,  with  every  mark  of  truth,  they  inform  us  of  physical 
phenomena,  they  can  no  more  be  credited  when  they  inform 
us  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Church;  if  our  primary  con- 
victions are  doubtful,  all  other  impressions  must  be  delusive 
and  deceitful.  So  far  as  we  are  able  to  ascertain,  one  thing, 
under  such  circumstances,  is  just  as  true  as  another ;  the 
sophist  is  the  only  philosopher,  skepticism  the  only  form  of 
wisdom. 

In  conformity  with  what  reason  would  lead  us  to  expect, 
we  find  from  actual  experience  that  in  Papal  countries, 
where  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  is  maintained  without 
limitation  or  reserve,  the  intelligent  members  of  the  com- 
munity have  no  real  belief  in  any  of  the  distinctive  doc- 
trines of  religion.  Hence,  too,  "  the  chair  of  St.  Peter"  has 
been  so  frequently  filled  by  those  who  despised  every  prin- 
ciple embraced  in  the  noble  confession  of  that  distinguished 
Apostle.  Leo  X.,  John  XXIII.  and  Clement  VII.,  Car- 
dinal Bembo,  Politian,  Pomponatius,  and  a  host  of  others, 
distinguished  alike  by  their  offices  and  attainments  in  the 
very  heart  of  the  Papal  dominions,  are  renowned,  many 
in  the  annals  of  infidelity,  all  in  the  history  of  religious 
hypocrisy. 

Vol.  Ill— 32 


498    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [LETTER  VI. 

The  Schoolmen,  indeed,  did  not  hesitate  to  maintain  the 
assertion  that  opinions  might  be  philosophically  true  and 
yet  theologically  false,  or  theologically  true  and  at  the  sam;- 
time  philosophically  false.  In  other  words,  they  main- 
tained that  truth  might  consist  with  open  contradictions, 
which  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  its  existence  was-  impos- 
sible, or  at  least  inconceivable.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  speculatioiis  of  the  Schoolmen  prepared  the  way  for  the 
extensive  desolations  of  what  has  been  called  philosophical 
wfidelity^  in  modern  times,  and  just  as  little  doubt  that  the 
violence  which  is  offered  by  the  creed  of  Rome  to  the  origi- 
nal principles  of  human  belief  introduced  the  Schoolmen 
into  those  curious  refinements  of  perverse  dialectics  which 
effectually  destroyed  the  unity  of  truth,  but  without  which 
they  were  compelled  to  abandon  the  infallible  dicta  of  an 
arrogant  community.     Modern  infidelity,  in  all  its  forms,  is 

^  Many  valuable  hints  concerning  the  connection  betwixt  the  scholastic 
philosophy  and  the  skepticism  by  which  it  was  rapidly  succeeded  may  be 
found  in  Ogilvie's  Inquiry  into  the  causes  of  infidelity  and  skepticism. 
The  seed  was  evidently  planted  by  the  Schoolmen  of  the  Middle  Ages 
which  subsequently  bore  such  bitter  fruit ;  they  encouraged  the  spirit  of 
captious  dialectics,  that  absurd  inattention  to  the  fundamental  laws  of 
belief  as  the  basis  of  philosophy,  which  in  other  hands  was  to  subvert  tlie 
foundations  of  all  that  was  fair,  venerable  or  sacred.  The  reader  may  be 
pleased  with  the  following  extract  from  a  learned  and  valuable  work : 

"  Imo,  unde  scholastici  suas  quodlibeticas  et  frivolas  questiones,  nisi  ex 
hac  scepticismi  lacuna,  hauserunt.  Hoc  bene  notavit  Jansenius  (August, 
torn,  ii.,  Lib.  Prooem.,  cap.  xxviii.).  Scholastici,  inquit,  nimio  philosophiiP 
amore  quasi  ebrii,  arcana  ilia  mysteria  gratise  sepulta  deletaque,  secun- 
diim  humanpe  rationis  regulas,  eruere,  penetrare,  formare,  judioare,  volue- 
runt.  Hinc  ille  ardor  de  quolibet  disputandi,  quidlibet  eorum  in  dubium 
revocandi.  Llinc  eorum  theologia  innumerabilium  opinionum  farragine 
rcferta  est,  per  quas  fere  omnia,  quantumcunque  contraria,  facta  sunt  pro- 
babilia ;  quse  secundum  eorum  pronunciata,  cuilibet  tueri  licet.  Ita  vix 
quicquam  certi,  prseter  fidem,  formandarum  opinionum  novarum  promp- 
titude reliquum  fecit.  Prtecipitii  enim  poena  suspendium,  etvoxv  hoc  est ; 
temeritatis,  omnis  hesitantia  et  incertitudo.  Nihil  enim  naturalius  et 
vicinius  quam  ut  homines  ex  Pcripateticis  fiant  Academici,  quorum  illi, 
sublucente  ratiuncula,  sententiam  extemplo  precipitant ;  hi,  temeritatis 
ducti  ptenitentia,  semper  hesitant;  et  nunc  hoc,  nunc  illud,  animo  fluctu- 
ante,  displicit,  placet;  unde  fit  ut  quod  eis  hodie  probabile  est,  eras  fal- 
sum  judicetur."    Galcei  Philos.  OeneraL,  Par.  ii.,  Lib.  i.,  c.  iv. 


Letter  VI.]      INFALLIBILITY    AND   SKEPTICLSM.  499 

much  more  intimately  connected  with  tlie  influence  of  tlie 
Papacy  than  seems  to  be  generally  apprehended.  From  the 
very  nature  of  the  case,  Popery  must  be  the  parent  of  skep- 
ticism, and  the  dogmas  of  Rome  cannot  be  admitted  with- 
out making  a  double  standard  of  truth  and  destroying  all 
its  consistency  and  harmony.  Those,  however,  who  are  not 
prepared  for  the  dreary  shades  of  unmitigated  skepticism 
will  much  prefer  the  legitimate  conclusions  of  their  own 
understanding  to  the  wretched  tattle  of  the  Papal  priest- 
hood. Fully  assured  that  a  standard  of  truth  in  reality 
exists,  uniform  and  stable,  they  can  never  believe  that  God 
has  subjected  their  minds  to  the  control  of  men  who  can 
deliberately  trifle  with  the  constitution  of  their  nature,  and 
make  its  inherent  propensities  and  instinctive  faith  a  matter 
of  mockery.  The  very  fact  that  these  miserable  guides  con- 
tradict the  universal  bias  of  mankind  is  sufficient  to  show  that 
they  are  blind  leaders  of  the  blind,  and  that,  instead  of  hav- 
ing a  commission  from  Heaven,  they  derive  their  claims  from 
the  father  of  lies.  God  Himself  in  His  acknowledged  reve- 
laiions  appeals  to  the  authority  of  our  primary  convictions. 
The  miracles  of  Jesus  Christ  were  addressed  to  the  senses, 
to  human  eyes  and  human  ears,  and  in  all  His  expostula- 
tions with  the  Jews  our  Saviour  evidently  assumes  the  abso- 
lute certainty  of  sense  and  consciousness — the  ultimate  sources 
of  all  human  knowledge — as  well  as  the  irresistible  authority 
of  those  original  principles  which  constitute  the  tests  of 
truth.  We  cannot  conceive,  indeed,  that  a  Divine  revela- 
tion could  be  possibly  authenticated  without  assuming  the 
credibility  of  our  faculties.  To  shake  our  confidence  in 
them  is  to  render  belief  impossible,  no  matter  what  may  be 
the  subject  proposed  or  the  evidence  submitted.  It  is  idle, 
in  fact,  to  talk  of  evidence — which  is  only  the  light  in  which 
the  mind  perceives  the  reality  of  truth — if  all  our  percep- 
tions are  to  be  called  into  question  or  involved  in  uncertainty. 
Any  pretended  teacher,  therefore,  who  does  not  authenticate 
his  claims  to  Divine  authority  by  performing  miracles  which 


500   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Letter  VI. 

none  could  achieve  unless  God  were  with  him,  any  teacher 
who  belies  his  pretensions  by  opening  his  mouth  in  what 
every  law  of  our  nature  requires  us  to  denounce  as  false- 
hood, must  be  regarded  as  a  child  of  darkness,  the  enemy 
of  light  and  the  foe  of  man.  No  Divine  revelation  can  be 
more  certain  than  the  testimony  of  sense  or  the  evidence 
of  consciousness.  Through  one  of  these  sources  every  idea 
must  be  conveyed  to  the  mind ;  and  whatever  teacher  un- 
dertakes to  set  them  aside  is  the  father  of  skepticism,  and 
requires  of  man  a  homage  which,  though  he  may  profess  to 
render,  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  pay.  If  the  evidence  that 
such  a  teacher  were  really  sent  from  God  were  equal  to  the 
evidence  of  sense  or  consciousness,  the  mind  would  then  be 
involved  in  the  state  of  contradiction  in  which  it  is  impos- 
sible to  form  an  opinion ;  the  teacher  and  our  nature,  like 
two  negatives  in  English,  would  destroy  each  other,  and 
our  real  faith  would  be  expressed  by  a  cipher.  The  mind, 
in  other  words,  would  be  a  perfect  blank,  a  stagnant  pool 
of  ignorance  and  doubt,  a  mere  chaos  of  discordant  elements, 
the  sport  of  endless  confusion  and  caprice.  It  is  vain  to 
pretend  that  we  honour  God  in  cordially  receiving  what  the 
constitution  of  our  nature  prompts  us  to  reject,  that  the 
merit  of  the  faith  is  enhanced  by  the  difficulties  which  we 
struggle  to  subdue.  When  these  difficulties  arise  from  per- 
verse dispositions,  from  stubborn  prejudices,  impetuous  pas- 
sions or  pride  of  understanding,  there  may  be  some  foun- 
dation for  the  plea ;  but  when  they  lie  in  the  very  nature  of 
the  evidence,  he  that  commends  his  faith  on  such  ground 
glories  in  the  fact  that  his  assent  is  strong  just  in  propor- 
tion as  the  evidence  is  weak,  and  amounts  to  absolute  cer- 
tainty when,  upon  the  most  favourable  hypothesis  that  can 
be  made  in  the  case,  there  is,  in  truth,  no  evidence  at  all. 
The  Papist,  for  instance,  may  regard  it  as  a  wonderful  tri- 
umph of  devout  respect  for  the  authority  of  God  that  he 
really  believes  that  bread  and  wine  are  transformed  into  the 
person  of  his  glorious  Redeemer,  the  accidents  of  bread  and 


Letter  VI.]      INFALLIBILITY   AND   SKEPTICISM.  501 

wine  remaining  still  unchanged.^  But  then  it  is  impossible 
that  the  evidence  in  favour  of  this  supposition  can  ever  be 
stronger  than  the  evidence  against  it.  Let  us  grant  that  it 
may  be  equal.  What,  then,  is  the  real  state  of  the  case? 
God  in  the  constitution  of  our  nature  requires  us  to  believe 
the  reality  of  the  bread ;  through  an  infallible  Church  He 
requires  us  to  believe  the  nature  of  the  change.  We  are 
just  as  certain  that  He  speaks  through  the  essential  consti- 
tution of  the  human  mind  as  through  a  general  Council  of 
the  Roman  Church.  To  say,  therefore,  that  we  honour  Him 
by  despising  our  nature,  and  being  absolutely  certain  that 
the  Church  is  right,  is  just  to  say  that  when  the  evidence  is 
precisely  on  a  poise  it  is  insulting  to  God  not  to  disregard 
His  first  revelation  through  the  reason  of  man.  Transub- 
stantiation  is  not  a  mystery,  but  an  absurdity,  not  a  dif- 
ficulty, but  a  contradiction,  not  something  which  transcends 
the  legitimate  province  of  reason,  but  a  fact  which  is  repug- 
nant to  every  principle  of  human  belief — a  fact  which  no 
man  can  receive  without  denying  the  paramount  authority 
of  those  elementary  truths  which  are  implanted  in  our 
nature  as  the  germ  of  all  subsequent  knowledge  and  phil- 
osophy, and  without  which  even  the  infallibility  of  a  teacher 
cannot  possibly  be  proved.  Rome,  then,  in  proposing  this 
dogma  as  an  article  of  faith,  is  the  patron  of  skepticism, 
and  undermines  the  very  foundation  on  which  alone  she  can 
rest  her  authority  to  dictate  at  all.  In  requiring  us  to 
believe  this  monstrous  absurdity  she  is  guilty  of  the  equally 
stupendous  folly  of  requiring  us  to  believe,  and  at  the  same 
time  deny,  the  certainty  of  sense  as  a  means  of  information ; 
^  Trent  teaches  that  by  the  consecration  of  the  bread  and  wine  the 
whole  substance  of  the  bread  is  converted  into  the  substance  of  the  body 
of  Christ  our  Lord,  and  the  whole  substance  of  the  wine  into  the  sub- 
stance of  His  blood  (Sess.  xiii.,  chap,  iv.) ;  that  Christ,  whole  and  entire, 
exists  under  the  species  of  bread,  and  in  every  particle  thereof,  and  under 
the  species  of  wine  and  in  all  its  parts  (Ibid.,  c.  iii.).  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
true  God  and  man,  says  the  Council  in  chap,  i.,  is  truly,  really  and  sub- 
stantially contained  in  the  pure  sacrament  of  the  holy  eucharist,  after  the 
consecration  of  the  bread  and  wine,  and  under  the  species  of  those  sensi- 
ble objects. 


502   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Letter  VI. 

to  believe  the  certainty  of  sense  in  order  to  substantiate  the 
infallibility  of  the  Church,  which  ultimately  rests  on  the 
Diyine  commission  of  Christ  as  established  by  miracles  ad- 
dressed to  the  senses,  and  acknowledged  by  them  to  be  indis- 
j:)utable  facts ;  to  deny  the  certainty  of  sense  in  order  to  sus- 
tain the  enormous  figment  that  all  the  sensible  properties  of 
the  bread  can  remain  unchanged  after  its  substance  has  been 
physically  transmuted  into  the  complex  person  of  the  Diyine 
Kedeemer.  How  such  egregious  trifling  witli  the  intellect- 
ual nature  of  mankind  differs  from  the  false  philosophy  of 
Hume  in  its  legitimate  effects  and  ineyitable  tendencies,  I 
leave  to  be  determined  by  those  who  are  fond  of  a  riddle  or 
tickled  with  a  paradox.  It  is  enough  for  me  to  know  that 
no  one  can  consistently  be  a  Papist  Avithout  ceasing  to  be  a 
man,  nor  subscribe  to  the  infallible  dogmas  of  that  apostate 
community  without  virtually  inculcating  that  truth  is  a 
fiction,  and  that  evidence  is  "  of  all  our  vanities  the  motli- 
est,  the  merest  word  that  ever  fooled  the  ear  from  out  the 
Schoolman's  jargon." 

The  history  of  Greek  philosophy  and  the  controversies 
on  the  subject  of  transubstantiation  reveal  a  remarkable  co- 
incidence between  the  ancient  Skeptics  of  Greece  and  the 
modern  doctors  of  Rome :  they  are  alike  in  the  principles 
with  which  they  set  out,  and  remarkably  alike  in  the  posi- 
tive but  inconsistent  dogmatism  upon  the  most  solemn  and 
important  subjects  with  which  they  professed  to  terminate 
their  inquiries.  The  distinctive  features  of  the  school  of 
Pyrrho  may  be  accurately  ascertained  from  his  division  of 
philosophy  and  the  answers  Avhich  he  gives  to  those  great 
questions  which  naturally  arise  from  his  distribution  of  the 
subject.  "  Whoever,"  says  the  founder  of  this  ill-omened 
sect — '*  whoever  would  live  hai)pily  ought  to  look  to  three 
things:  first,  how  things  are  in  themselves;  secondly,  in 
what  relation  man  stands  to  them ;  and,  lastly,  Avhat  will  be 
the  inevitable  consequence  of  such  relations."  The  followers 
of  this  blind  and  infatuated  guide  called  into  question  the 
voracity  of  the  senses,  and  endeavoured  to  show  that  there 


Letter  VI.]      INFALLIBILITY    AND   SKEPTICISM.  503 

was  no  unalterable  standard  of  truth  in  conformity  with 
which  our  judgments  should  be  formed.  They  regarded 
mankind  as  walking  literally  in  a  vain  show,  and  pronounced 
it  to  be  impossible  to  ascribe  w^ith  certainty  any  real  exist- 
ence to  the  objects  which  surround  us.  Hence  they  recom- 
mended a  suspension  of  judgment — an  entire  absence  from 
all  positive  assertion,  as  the  dictate  of  wisdom.  Their  propo- 
sitions were  to  be  thrown  into  the  form  of  questions,  not 
that  the  answers  could  ever  be  determined,  but  that  the 
uncertainty  of  knowledge  miglit  be  clearly  indicated  and 
the  vacancy  of  the  mind  distinctly  acknowledged.  This  fluc- 
tuating state  of  opinion,  or  rather  this  abstinence  from  any- 
thing sufficiently  positive  to  be  called  opinion,  was  regarded 
by  the  Skeptics  as  the  true  method  of  securing  felicity.  To 
embrace  skepticism  was  to  embrace  a  life  of  tranquillity,  in 
which  the  indifference  of  the  mind  to  truth  and  falsehood 
happily  responded  to  the  uncertainty  of  things ;  and  as 
nothing  ^Yas  alloM^ed  to  be  real,  the  anxieties  of  hope,  the 
perturbations  of  fear  and  all  the  inquietude  of  passion  were 
suppressed  by  the  removal  of  the  causes  which  produce 
them.  This  was  the  theory,  but  the  rules  of  life  which 
these  philosophers  prescribed  (and  in  this  matter  with  a 
strange  inconsistency  they  were  dogmatical  and  positive) 
were  completely  at  war  ^viih  their  speculative  doctrines. 
They  recommended  a  moderation  of  desire  which  evidently 
implied  that  there  were  real  causes  in  existence  to  disturb 
the  equanimity  of  the  soul ;  and,  like  the  Romanists,  while 
in  one  breath  they  rejected  the  authority  of  the  senses,  in 
the  very  next  they  assumed  their  information  as  the  basis  of 
practical  wisdom. 

It  will  be  remembered  that,  in  the  progress  of  opinion, 
the  Skeptics  introduced  the  Epicureans.  The  true  tendency 
of  Pyrrhonism  is  to  destroy  all  interest  in  human  aifairs, 
to  bring  about  a  state  of  complete  indifference,  to  shroud 
the  mind  in  a  listless  apathy,  to  produce  an  intellectual 
swoon  in  which,  though  the  powers  exist,  their  exercise  is 
entirely  suspended.     To  confound  the  distinctions  of  truth 


504    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Letter  VI. 

and  falsehood,  to  render  knowledge  impossible  or  certainty 
absurd,  is  to  divest  the  mind  of  all  motive  to  exertion  and 
remove  from  character  the  stability  of  principle.  The  in- 
vestigation of  truth  is  the  proper  employment  of  the  human 
understanding ;  the  possession  of  truth  constitutes  its  wealth ; 
the  love  of  truth  its  glory ;  and  sympathy  with  truth  its 
health  and  vigour.  A  greater  curse  cannot,  consequently, 
be  inflicted  on  the  race  than  to  repress  the  mind  in  its  noble 
aspirations  by  pronouncing  its  pursuits  to  be  vain  and  nu- 
gatory. Society  could  not  exist,  every  faculty  of  the  soul 
would  wither,  and  pine,  and  die,  unless  something  were 
believed,  something  cherished  and  loved.  To  deny  that 
there  are  any  principles  in  any  department  of  human  in- 
quiry on  which  we  may  repose  with  confidence  and  safety 
is  to  reduce  man  to  a  condition  of  torpor  which  nature  can- 
not and  will  not  tolerate.  The  activity  of  the  soul  must 
be  exerted ;  and  if  debarred  from  the  generous  pursuit  of 
truth,  it  will  vent  its  inclinations  in  lawless  pleasure  and 
gratify  its  lusts  with  unrestrained  licentiousness.  The 
Sophists  are  natural  precursors  of  Atheists  and  Libertines. 
It  was  so  in  Greece ;  it  was  so  in  the  Middle  Ages  ;  it  is  still 
so  where  the  Roman  hierarchy  is  unchecked  in  its  influence 
by  the  warning  and  example  of  Protestant  teachers.  The 
reality  of  the  passions,  of  pride,  ambition,  avarice  and  re- 
venge, is  a  matter  of  feeling  which  the  refinements  of  skep- 
ticism are  unable  to  dissipate.  These  will  exert  unlimited 
sway  where  the  sacred  majesty  of  truth  has  been  disrobed 
of  its  power ;  these  will  remain  as  certainties  when  all  other 
things  are  involved  in  doubt;  and  skepticism  can  do  no 
more,  from  the  very  nature  of  man,  than  to  remove  the 
checks  from  appetite  and  lust,  and  give  the  reins  to  the 
indulgence  of  desire.  In  charging,  therefore,  the  Church 
of  Rome  with  embracing  the  fundamental  principles  of 
ske]iticism,  I  bring  an  awful  accusation  against  her.  She 
disturbs  the  foundations  of  society ;  she  sanctions  principles 
which,  if  legitimately  carried  out,  would  obliterate  all 
science,  all  morality,  all  regulated  freedom  and  all  religion. 


Letter  VI.]      INFALLIBILITY   AND   SKEPTICISM.  505 

Instead  of  being  the  representative  of  Christ,  who  came  to 
bear  witness  to  the  truth,  she  stands  on  the  same  platform 
with  Pyrrhonists,  Sophists,  Atheists  and  Epicureans.  Hence 
we  should  not  be  surprised  that  Rome  is  now,  and  ever  has 
been,  in  every  period  of  her  history,  the  mortal  enemy  of 
free  discussion.  Those  who  acknowledge  no  invariable 
standard  of  truth  must  regard  investigation  as  idle  and  ar- 
gument as  vain.  And  Rome,  too,  is  just  skeptic  enough  to 
discard  all  sense  of  moral  obligation  and  to  gratify  her 
characteristic  lusts — ambition  and  avarice — without  the  an- 
noyances of  compunction  and  remorse.  These  passions, 
like  beasts  of  prey,  seek  the  cover  of  darkness  for  their 
crimes ;  and  the  history  of  the  past  affords  the  fullest  au- 
thority for  saying  that  Rome  has  found  it  convenient  to 
envelop  truth  in  obscurity,  in  order  that  she  might  promote 
her  own  aggrandizement  without  molestation  or  disturbance. 
Nothing,  indeed,  can  more  strikingly  illustrate  her  indiffer- 
ence to  truth,  and  the  steady  zeal  with  which  she  pursues 
her  purposes  of  pride,  than  her  shameful  policy  in  reference 
to  books.  Her  exj)urgatory  and  prohibitory  indexes  em- 
brace the  choicest  monuments  of  learning ;  her  sons  are  de- 
barred from  holding  communion  with  the  master-spirits  of 
the  race  to  whom  science,  philosophy  and  liberty  are  under 
the  deepest  obligations.  Among  the  works  which  to  this 
day  are  proscribed  by  the  proper  authorities  at  Rome  are 
the  writings  of  Bacon,  Milton  and  Locke.  Even  the  more 
liberal  of  her  own  children  who  have  had  the  audacity  to 
prefer  candour  to  the  interests  of  the  hierarchy  have  been 
rudely  enrolled  on  the  list  of  proscription.  Du  Pin,  DcThou 
and  Fenelon  stand  side  by  side  with  Cave,  Robertson  and 
Bingham.  Rome  dreads  nothing  so  much  as  liberty  of 
thought.  Light  is  death  to  her  cause;  and  consequently 
truth,  philosophy  and  reason,  the  Book  of  God  and  the 
books  of  men,  must  be  supjaressed,  silenced  and  condemned, 
lest  the  slumbers  of  the  people  should  be  broken,  the  sun 
of  righteousness  arise,  and  the  frauds  and  impostures  of  an 
arrogant  community  exposed  to  the  gaze  of  day.     She  can 


506    ARGUMENTS   FOR    APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Letter  VI. 

only  flourish  among  a  nation  of  sophists,  among  a  people 
who  have  lost  the  love  of  truth  and  seek  from  authority 
what  ought  to  be  sustained  by  evidence. 

To  the  Papal  sect  we  are  also  indebted  for  the  first  re- 
straints upon  the  freedom  of  the  press.^     Till  the  unhal- 

1  "  The  first  instances  of  books  printed  with  Imprimaturs,  or  official  per- 
missions, are  two  printed  at  Cologne,  and  sanctioned  by  the  University  in 
1479  (one  of  them  a  Bible),  and  another  at  Heidelberg,  in  1480,  author- 
ized by  the  Patriarch  of  Venice.  The  oldest  mandate  that  is  known  for 
appointing  a  Book-Censor  is  one  issued  by  Berthold,  Archbishop  of  Mentz, 
in  the  year  1486,  forbidding  persons  to  translate  any  books  out  of  the 
Latin,  Greek  or  other  languages  into  the  vulgar  tongue,  or,  when  trans- 
lated, to  sell  or  dispose  of  them,  unless  admitted  to  be  sold  by  certain 
doctors  and  masters  of  the  University  of  Erfurt.  In  1501,  Pope  Alexan- 
der VI.  published  a  Bull  prohibiting  any  books  to  be  printed  without  the 
approbation  of  the  Archbishops  of  Cologne,  Mentz,  Treves  and  Magde- 
burg, or  their  Vicars-General,  or  officials  in  spirit\ials,  in  those  respective 
provinces.  The  year  following,  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  sovereigns  of 
Spain,  published  a  royal  ordinance*  charging  the  Presidents  of  the  Chan- 
cellaries  of  Valladolid  and  Ciudad  Eeal,  and  the  Archbishops  of  Toledo, 
Seville  and  Grenada,  and  the  Bishops  of  Burgos,  Salamanca  and  Zamora, 
with  everything  relative  to  the  examination,  censure,  impression,  impor- 
tation and  sale  of  books.  In  the  Council  of  Lateran,  held  under  Leo  X., 
in  1515,  it  was  decreed  that  no  book  should  be  printed  at  Rome,  nor  in 
other  cities  and  dioceses,  unless,  if  at  Rome,  it  had  been  examined  by  the 
Vicar  of  his  Holiness  and  the  Master  of  the  Palace ;  or,  if  elsewhere,  by 
the  Bishop  of  the  diocese,  or  a  doctor  appointed  by  him,  and  had  received 
the  signature,  under  pain  of  excommunication  and  burning  of  the  book." — 
Townley's  Essays  on  various  subjects,  etc. 

The  above  extract  has  been  taken  from  ]\Iendliam's  Literary  Policy  of 
the  Church  of  Rome— a  work  which  condenses  much  rare  and  valuable 
information,  illustrating  the  savage  ferocity  of  Popes  and  Councils  in  ref- 
erence to  the  independent  productions  of  the  human  mind.  The  infomous 
decree  of  the  Council  of  Lateran  was  confirmed  by  Trent,  and  Rome  is 
to-day  as  bigoted  and  bitter,  as  much  the  enemy  of  light  and  knowledge, 
as  she  was  three  hundred  years  ago.  The  Encyclical  Letter  of  the  present 
Pope,  dated  August  15, 1832,  among  other  precious  maledictions  of  the  rights 
of  man,  denounces  the  "  fatal  and  detestable  liberty  of  publishing  what- 
ever one  chooses"  (deterrima  ilia  ac  nunquam  satis  execranda  et  detesta- 
bilis  libertas  artis  librarian  ad  scripia  qua-libet  edenda  in  ndgus);  and  the 
Letter  of  Cardinal  Barthelemi  Pacca,  dated  August  16,  1832,  addressed  to 
the  Abbe  de  Mennais,  which  may  be  regarded  as  an  authoritative  expo- 
sition of  the  Encyclical  Letter  itself,  condemns  the  doctrines  of  the 
A  vinci — a  periodical  publication  which  exerted  great  influence  at  the  time 


Letter  VI.]      INFALLIBILITY   AND   SKEPTICISM.  507 

lowed  usurpations  of  Rome  had  devised  the  expedient  of 
suppressing  thought  by  preventing  its  propagation,  "books," 
says  Milton,  "  were  ever  as  freely  admitted  into  the  Avorld 
as  any  other  birth ;  the  issue  of  the  brain  was  no  more 
stifled  than  the  issue  of  the  womb;  no  envious  Juno  sat 
cross-legged  over  the  nativity  of  any  man's  intellectual  off- 
spring ;  but  if  it  proved  a  monster,  who  denies  but  that  it 
was  justly  burnt  or  sunk  into  the  sea?  But  that  a  book 
in  a  worse  condition  than  a  peccant  soul  should  be  to  stand 
before  a  jury  ere  it  be  born  to  the  world,  and  undergo,  yet 
in  darkness,  the  judgment  of  Rhadamanth  and  his  col- 
leagues ere  it  can  pass  the  ferry  backwards  into  light,  was 
never  heard  before,  till  that  mysterious  iniquity,  provoked 
and  troubled  at  the  first  entrance  of  reformation,  sought  out 
new  limbos  and  new  hells  wherein  they  might  include  our 
books  also  within  the  number  of  the  damned." 

How  the  literary  policy  of  Rome  can  be  reconciled  with 
any  decent  regard  for  the  authority  of  truth  or  the  enlarge- 
ment of  the  mind  it  is  impossible  to  discover.  If  Truth 
indeed  be  "  strong  next  to  the  Almighty,  she  needs  no 
policies,  nor  stratagems,  nor  licensings  to  make  her  victo- 
rious ;  these  are  the  shifts  and  defences  that  Error  uses 
against  her  power."  It  is  the  owls  and  bats  of  the  world 
that  love  to  expatiate  in  darkness :  the  eagle  gazes  on  the 
sun,  and  his  flight  is  as  lofty  as  his  vision  is  clear.  Truth 
rises  from  the  conflicts  of  discussion  noble  and  puissant; 
untarnished  by  the  smoke  and  dust  of  the  collision,  she 
shakes  her  invincible  locks,  and,  like  a  strong  man  re- 
freshed by  reason  of  wine,  rejoices  to  run  her  race.     That 

in  reference  to  freedom  of  religion  and  tlie  freedom  of  the  press.  Liberal 
sentiments  on  these  subjects  the  Cardinal  declares  to  be  highly  reprehen- 
sible, inconsistent  alike  with  the  doctrines,  the  maxims  and  the  practice 
of  the  Church.  In  July,  1834,  the  Pope  issued  another  infernal  bulletin 
against  light,  knowledge  and  liberty,  occasioned  by  a  new  work  of  Men- 
nais,  entitled  the  Words  of  a  Believer.  This  document  far  surpasses  in 
the  violence  of  its  tyrainiical  principles  the  P^ncyclical  Letter  of  August 
15.  These  facts  show  what  Jlo))ie  noiv  is.  1  allude  to  them  now  incident- 
ally, as  I  sliall  have  occasion  hereafter  to  notice  them  more  fully. 


508    ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Lettek  VI. 

cause  which  is  propped  by  prohibitions  and  anathemas, 
which  apjioints  spiritual  midwives  to  slay  the  man-children 
born  into  the  world,  which,  like  kings,  is  stronger  in  legions 
than  in  arguments,  bears  a  shrewd  presumption  on  its  face 
that  it  is  not  the  cause  of  the  Father  of  lights. 

It  is  a  beautiful  arrangement  of  infinite  wisdom  that  they 
who  assert  so  stujDendous  a  claim  as  that  of  infallibility, 
without  the  least  proof  of  Divine  authority,  should  yet  so 
completely  stumble  on  the  very  threshold  of  philosophy  as 
to  make  their  stupidity  much  more  remarkable  than  their 
pretensions  to  knowledge.  It  would  be  amusing,  if  it  were 
not  so  humiliating,  to  see  these  arrogant  empirics  swelling 
with  pompous  promises  to  dispel  all  doubt,  obscurity  and 
confusion  from  the  doctrines  of  religion,  and  to  establish 
Christianity  upon  the  firm  basis  of  infallible  truth,  while 
the  words  have  scarcely  escaped  from  their  lips  before  they 
contradict  every  principle  of  human  belief,  and  teach  us  to 
regard  all  certainty  and  evidence  as  mere  chimeras.  They 
promise  to  give  us  infallible  assurance,  and  end  by  instruct- 
ing us  that  such  a  thing  as  assurance  is  utterly  impossible. 
Surely  they  are  the  men,  and  wisdom  will  die  with  them! 
How  true  it  is  that  the  wicked  are  ensnared  in  the  work  of 
their  own  hands !  How  true  the  exclamation  of  the  poet, — 

"Oh  what  a  tangled  -sveb  we  weave 
When  first  we  practise  to  deceive !" 

It  deserves  to  be  added  that,  in  inculcating  a  spirit  of 
skepticism  and  denying  a  permanent  standard  of  truth,  the 
Church  of  Rome  impeaches  the  immutability  of  moral  dis- 
tinctions, and  declares  herself  to  be  a  child  of  the  devil  and 
an  enemy  of  all  righteousness.  She  unsettles  the  founda- 
tions of  right  and  wrong.  She  is  as  loose  in  her  principles 
as  she  is  corrupt  in  her  practices.  Consistently  with  her 
statements  on  the  subject  of  transubstantiation,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  establish  an  unchanging  standard  of  moral  obliga- 
tion ;  and  as  she  evidently  begins  in  Pyrrhonism,  she  must 
necessarily  end  in  Epicureanism.     The  enormous   corrup- 


Letter  VI.]       INFALLIBILITY    AXD   SKEPTICISM.  509 

tions  of  the  clergy  Avhich  provoked  tlie  indignation  of 
Europe  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  their  rapacity, 
licentiousness  and  lust,  were  not  the  occasional  abuses  of 
wicked  men,  foreign  to  the  system  and  abhorrent  to  the 
principles  of  the  mass  of  the  Church.  They  were  the 
legitimate,  natural,  necessary  results  of  that  spirit  of  skep- 
ticism which  Romanism  must  engender  among  all  who 
reflect  upon  the  foundations  of  knowledge  or  the  nature  of 
evidence.  They  were  the  bitter  fruit  of  her  graceless  pre- 
tensions to  infallibility.^ 

As  the  priesthood  of  Rome,  in  their  mortal  opposition  to 
the  natural  measures  of  truth  and  certainty,  have  virtually 
claimed  to  be  the  arbiters  of  truth,  it  was  not  unreasonable 
to  expect  that  they  should  likewise  claim  to  be  lords  of  the 
conscience  and  arbiters  of  duty.  Hence  we  find,  in  fact, 
that  by  the  name  and  pretended  authority  of  God  they 
have  instituted  a  standard  of  morality  which  completely 
sets  aside  the  eternal  principles  of  rectitude,  and  makes  the 
interests  of  the  Papacy,  which  means  nothing  more  than  the 
wealth  and  power  of  the  hierarchy,  the  supreme  object  of 
pursuit.  That  is  right,  according  to  the  philosophy  of  Rome, 
Avhich  enlarges  the  dominion  of  the  priests  or  increases  the 
revenues  of  the  Pope.  Actions  take  their  moral  complexion, 
not  from  their  influence  on  the  relations  which  men  sustain 
to  society  or  the  relations  in  which  they  stand  to  their  God, 
but  from  the  bearing  which  they  have  upon  the  temporal 
grandeur  of  the  Roman  See.  The  Papists,  like  the  Scrip- 
tures, divide  mankind  into  two  great  classes;  but  the  right- 
eous, according  to  Rome,  are  not  those  who  are  distinguished 
by  works  of  faith,  benevolence  and  charity :  these  she  has 
felt  it  her  special  vocation  to  pursue,  in  every  corner  of  the 
earth,  with  fire  and  sword,  with  stripes  and  torture,  im- 
prisonment and  death.  Moral  accomplishments  are  nothing, 
in  her  eye,  as  she  acknowledges  no  standard  of  duty  which 

1  Note  by  Editor. — For  a  discussion  of  the  relation  between  error  in 
speculation  and  lubricity  of  moral  principle,  between  skepticism  and 
immorality,  see  Discourse  of  the  Author  on  Truth,  vol.  ii.,  p.-  486. 


510   ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Letter  VI. 

docs  not  award  to  her  the  sublime  position  which  reason 
and  the  Scriptures  accord  to  the  Almighty  as  centre  of  the 
moral  system,  to  whom  are  all  things,  for  whom  are  all 
things,  and  by  whom  are  all  things.  Her  just  ones  may  be 
polluted  by  every  crime  which  humanity  can  perpetrate — 
by  incest,  adultery,  murder  and  treason;  they  may,  like 
Hildebrand,  be  firebrands  of  hell,  like  John  XII.,  the  beastly 
impersonations  of  lust ;  yet  all  is  right :  they  are  the  salt 
of  the  earth,  the  excellent  ones  in  whom  Rome  takes  de- 
light, if  they  prefer  her  interests  above  their  chief  joy. 
The  supremacy  of  homage  and  aifection  which  she  claims 
for  herself  places  her  on  the  throne  of  the  Eternal,  regulates 
the  standard  of  morality  according  to  the  measures  which 
are  best  adapted  to  promote  her  authority,  completely  sets 
aside  the  glory  of  God,  which  is  and  ought  to  be  the  chief 
end  of  man,  and  reverses  all  those  arrangements  of  Infinite 
Wisdom  by  which  the  harmony  of  the  universe  has  been 
nicely  adjusted  in  accordance  with  the  moral  laws,  which 
spring  necessarily  from  the  Divine  perfections.  He  that 
makes  the  glory  of  God  the  end  of  his  being,  and  the  per- 
fections of  God  his  standard  of  rectitude,  is  certainly  in 
unison  with  all  that  we  know  of  that  vast  system  of  goveini- 
ment,  embracing  the  universe  and  compassing  eternity, 
under  which  we  live.  But  such  grand  and  magnificent 
conceptions  of  duty,  the  views  of  the  Bible,  of  truth  and  of 
nature,  find  no  encouragement  from  the  niggard  politicians 
of  Rome.  They  see  in  man  but  a  slave  for  their  lusts;  and 
their  whole  system  of  morality  is  a  sordid  calculation  of 
interest,  their  duties  are  feudal  services,  and  the  solemn 
sanctions  of  religion  are  only  introduced  to  give  currency 
and  success  to  their  nefarious  frauds.  Wealth  and  power 
are  the  watchwords  of  the  hierarchy.  The  visible  and  in- 
visible worlds  are  alike  the  sources  of  their  merchandise, 
souls  are  their  spoils  and  the  patronage  of  sin  the  ultimate 
issue  of  their  policy.  The  doctrine  of  indulgences,  the 
practice  of  auricular  confession,  the  system  of  penances,  the 
invention  •  of    purgatory    and    the   detestable   principle   of 


Letter  YL]       INFALLIBILITY   AND   SKEPTICISM.  511 

private  masses  are  only  links  in  a  chain  of  tlespotism  by 
which  Rome  binds  the  consciences  of  men,  in  order  to  seize 
the  possession  of  their  treasures.  The  whole  scheme  of 
Papal  abominations  is  directed  with  unerring  sagacity  to 
the  secular  aggrandizement  of  the  clergy.^     Every  doctrine 

1  "What  can  we  think  of  redeeming  souls  out  of  purgatory,  or  pi-eserv- 
ing  them  from  it  by  tricks,  or  some  mean  pageantry,  but  that  it  is  a  foul 
piece  of  merchandise?  What  is  to  be  said  of  implicit  obedience,  the 
priestly  dominion  over  consciences,  the  keeping  the  Scriptures  out  of  the 
people's  hands  and  the  worship  of  God  in  a  strange  tongue,  but  that  these 
are  so  many  arts  to  hoodwink  the  world,  and  to  deliver  it  up  into  the 
hands  of  the  ambitious  clergy  ?  What  can  we  think  of  superstition  and 
idolatry  of  images,  and  all  the  other  pomp  of  the  Roman  worship,  but 
that  by  these  things  the  people  were  to  be  kept  up  in  a  gross  notion  of 
religion  as  a  splendid  business,  and  that  priests  have  a  trick  of  saving 
them  if  they  will  but  take  care  to  humour  them,  and  leave  that  matter 
wholly  in  their  hands?  And  to  sum  up  all,  what  can  we  think  of  that 
constellation  of  prodigies  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar  but  that  it  is  an 
art  to  bring  the  world  by  wholesale  to  renounce  their  reason  and  sense, 
and  to  have  a  most  wonderful  veneration  for  a  sort  of  men  who  can,  with 
a  word,  perform  the  most  astonishing  thing  that  ever  was?" — Burnet, 
Hist.  Ref. 

"Of  all  the  contrivances  to  enthral  mankind  and  to  usurp  the  entire 
command  of  them,  that  of  auricular  confession  appears  the  most  impudent 
and  the  most  effectual.  That  one  set  of  men  could  persuade  all  other 
men  that  it  Avas  their  duty  to  come  and  reveal  to  them  everything  which 
they  had  done,  and  everything  which  they  meant  to  do,  would  not  be 
credible  if  it  were  not  proved  by  the  fact.  This  circumstance  rendered 
tlie  clergy  masters  of  the  secrets  of  every  family ;  it  rendered  them,  too, 
the  universal  advisers ;  when  any  person's  intentions  were  laid  before  a 
clergyman,  it  was  his  business  to  explain  what  was  lawful  and  what  was 
not,  and  under  this  pretext  to  give  what  counsel  he  pleased.  In  this 
manner  the  clergy  became  masters  of  the  whole  system  of  human  life ; 
the  tivo  objects  they  chiefly  pursued  were  to  increase  the  riches  of  the  order 
and  to  gratify  their  senses  and  pride.  By  using  all  their  arts  to  cajole  the 
great  and  wealthy,  and  attacking  them  in  moments  of  weakness,  sickness 
and  at  the  hour  of  death,  they  o!)tained  great  and  numerous  bequests  to 
the  Church  ;  by  abusing  the  opportunities  they  enjoyed  with  women,  they 
indulged  their  lusts ;  and  by  the  direction  they  obtained  in  the  manage- 
ment of  every  family  and  every  event,  they  exercised  their  love  of 
power  when  they  could  not  draw  an  accession  of  wealth." — Villers  on 
Reform. 

The  doctrine  of  private  masses  is  one  of  the  worst  corruptions  of  the 
Romish  Church.  What  Rome  teaches  to  be  Jesus  Christ  is  actually  sold 
in  the  market,  and  the  solemn  oblation  of  the  Son  of  God  is  professed  to 


512   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Letter  VI. 

has  its  place  in  the  scale  of  profit ;  power  and  money  are 
the  grand  and  decisive  tests  of  truth  and  righteousness;  and 
every  principle  is  estimated  by  Rome  according  to  its  weight 
in  the  balances  of  ambition  and  avarice.  Expediency,  in 
its  most  enlarged  acceptation,  is  a  dangerous  test  of  moral 
obligation;  but  when  restricted  to  the  contemptible  ends 
Avhich  the  Papacy  contemplates,  when  all  the  duties  of  man- 
kind are  measured  by  the  interests,  the  secular  interests,  of 
a  wicked  corporation,  we  may  rest  assured  that  the  most 
detestable  vices  will  pass  unrebuked,  monsters  of  iniquity 
be  canonized  as  saints,  and  the  laws  which  hold  the  universe 
in  order  be  revoked  in  subservience  to  the  paltry  purposes 
of  sacerdotal  intolerance.  Rome  claims  the  power  of  bind- 
ing the  conscience.  She  professes  to  wield  the  authority 
of  God,  and  her  injunctions,  audacious  as  they  are,  she  has 
the  moral  eflfi'ontery  to  proclaim  in  the  name  of  the  Most 
High.  She  consequently  is  at  once  a  lawgiver  and  a  judge. 
Trutli  is  what  she  declares  and  righteousness  is  what  she 
approves.  Such  stupendous  claims  on  the  part  of  ignorant, 
erring  and  sinful  mortals  like  ourselves  must  exert  a  disas- 
trous influence  on  the  purity  of  morals,  and  sanctify  the 
filthy  dreams  of  men  as  the  inspired  revelations  of  the 
Father  of  truth.  It  is  impossible,  under  such  circumstances, 
but  that  interest  should  be  made  the  ultimate  standard  of 
propriety,  and  the  whole  moral  order  of  the  universe  in- 
volved in  corresponding  confusion,  by  making  that  which 

be  made  for  dollars  and  cents.  We  have  masses  for  penitents,  masses  for 
the  dead,  masses  at  privileged  altars,  all  which  command  a  price  in  the 
shambles  and  increase  the  revenues  of  the  grasping  priesthood.  To  the 
disgrace  of  the  hierarchy  it  deserves  to  be  mentioned  that  they  frequently 
received  large  sums  of  money  for  masses  -which  they  never  had  the  honesty 
to  say.  Llorente  tells  us  of  a  Spanish  priest  who  had  been  paid  for 
eleven  thousand  eight  hundred  masses  which  he  never  said.  We  are  in- 
formed of  a  church  in  Venice,  in  1743,  that  was  in  arrears  for  sixteen 
thousand  four  hundred  masses.  What  a  traffic  in  human  souls !  Cheated 
of  their  money,  cheated  of  their  liberty,  cheated  of  their  hopes,  cheated 
of  salvation, — how  mournful  the  condition  of  the  blinded,  infatuated 
Papists !  What  a  stupendous  system  for  accumulating  power  and  wealth 
in  tlie  hands  of  the  clergy ! 


Letter  VI.]      INFALLIBILITY   AND   SKEPTICISM.       •  513 

ought  never  to  be  au  end  the  supreme  object  of  human 
pursuit. 

The  moral  system  of  the  Jesuits,  as  developed  in  their 
secret  instructions  and  the  writings  of  their  celebrated  casu- 
ists, breathes  the  true  spirit  of  the  Papacy.  These  men  are 
the  sworn  subjects  of  the  Roman  Pontiff;  to  promote  the 
interests  of  their  sect  is  the  single  j^urpose  of  their  lives, 
and  their  code  of  morality  is  based  uj)on  the  principles 
which  support  the  foundation  of  the  Papal  throne.  In  the 
Jesuits,  consequently,  we  behold  the  legitimate  effects  of 
the  Papal  system ;  in  them  it  is  unrestrained  by  the  voice 
of  nature,  the  authority  of  conscience  or  veneration  for  God. 
They  are  Papists — pure,  genuine,  undulterated  Papists ; 
they  have  endeavoured  to  divest  themselves  of  every  quality 
which  is  not  in  unison  with  the  authority  of  Pome ;  they 
have  made  the  Pope  their  god  for  whom  they  live,  in  whom 
they  trust  and  to  whom  they  have  surrendered  their  health 
and  strength  and  all  things.  It  is  only  in  them,  or  those 
who  breathe  a  kindred  spirit  with  themselves,  that  the  true 
tendencies  of  Romanism  have  ever  been  fully  developed. 
Thousands  in  Rome  have  not  been  able  to  be  fully  of  Rome, 
and  the  influence  of  Popery  has  been  secretly  modified  by 
numberless  restraining  circumstances  in  their  position,  rela- 
tions and  condition  of  society. 

To  take  the  doctrines  of  the  Jesuits  as  the  true  standard 
of  Papal  authority  cannot  be  censured  as  injustice  by  those 
who  consider  the  intimate  connection  Avhich  subsists  between 
licentiousness  and  skepticism.  There  is  not  a  single  dis- 
tinctive feature  of  Jesuitism  which  may  not  be  justified  by 
the  necessary  tendencies  of  the  acknowledged  principles  of 
Rome.'  These  men  have  embodied  the  sj)irit  of  tlie  Church  ; 
they  have  digested  its  doctrines  into  order ;  they  have 
reduced  its  enormities  to  logical  consistency,  and  held  up 

^  "One  cannot  condemn  the  Jesuits  without  condemning  at  tlie  same 
time  the  whole  ancient  school  of  the  Eoman  Church."  Claude's  Defence 
of  the  Keformation,  Part  I.,  chap,  iii.,  ^  9.     The  proofs  are  furnished  in 
connection  with  the  passage. 
Vol.  III.— 33 


514   ARGUMENTS  FOR  APOCRYPHA  DISCUSSED.  [Letter  YI. 

before  us  a  faithful  mirror  in  which  we  may  contemplate 
the  hideous  deformities  of  a  body  which  claims  to  be  the 
Church  of  God,  but  has  inscribed  in  indelible  characters  on 
its  front  the  synagogue  of  Satan.  Hence,  the  Papal  guar- 
dians of  the  press,  in  their  zeal  to  stem  the  torrent  of  false- 
hood and  repress  the  spread  of  dangerous  speculations,  while 
they  have  eviscerated  the  Fathers,  prohibited  the  writings 
of  the  early  Reformers  and  condemned  the  most  precious 
monuments  of  philosophy  and  learning,  have  suffered  the 
productions  of  Jesuitical  casuists  to  stalk  abroad  into  the 
light  of  day  with  the  imprimatur  of  the  Church  upon  them. 
These  works  are  studied  in  Papal  schools  and  colleges ;  sys- 
tems formed  in  accordance  with  the  doctrines  of  ]\lolina 
have  free  circulation  where  Locke,  Cudworth  and  Bacon 
are  not  permitted  to  enter.  If  the  moral  system  of  the 
Jesuits  was  unpalatable  to  Rome,  why  has  the  order  been 
revived  ?  Why  has  power  been  granted  to  its  members  to 
apply  themselves  to  the  education  of  youth,  to  direct  colleges 
and  seminaries,  to  hear  confessions,  to  preach  and  administei 
the  sacraments  f  Pius  VII.,  in  allusion  to  the  Jesuits,  and 
in  vindication  of  his  odious  conduct  in  turning  them  loose 
to  desolate  society,  states,  "  he  would  deem  it  a  great  crime 
toward  God  if  amidst  the  dangers  of  the  Christian  republic 
he  should  neglect  to  employ  the  aids  which  the  special  pro- 
vidence of  God  had  put  in  his  power,  and  if  placed  in  the 
bark  of  St.  Peter  and  tossed  by  continual  storms,  he  should 
refuse  to  employ  the  vigorous  and  experienced  rowers  who 
volunteer  their  services."  The  peculiar  services  which  the 
Jesuits  have  rendered  to  the  interests  of  the  Papacy  have 
been  owing  to  the  lubricity  of  their  moral  principles.  It  is 
not  their  superior  zeal,  but  the  superior  pliancy  of  their 
consciences,  which  has  made  them  such  "  vigorous  and  expe- 
rienced rowers,"  and  in  condescending  to  accept  their  labours 
Rome  has  endorsed  the  enormities  of  their  system  and 
actually  sanctioned  their  atrocious  immoralities. 

The  most   detestable  principles  of  this  graceless  order 
have  not  only  received  in  this  way  the  indirect  sanction  of 


Letter  YL]       INFALLIBILITY   AND   SKEPTICISM.  515 

the  head  of  the  Papacy,  but  may  be  found  embodied  in  the 
recorded  canons  of  general  Councils.  That  the  end  justifies 
the  means,  that  the  interests  of  the  priesthood  are  superior 
to  the  claims  of  truth,  justice  and  humanity,  is  necessarily 
implied  in  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Lateran,  that  no 
oaths  are  binding  Avhich  conflict  with  the  advantage  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  that  to  keep  them  is  perjury  rather  than 
fidelity.  What  fraud  have  the  Jesuits  ever  recommended 
or  conmiitted  that  can  exceed  in  iniquity  the  bloody  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Council  of  Constance  in  reference  to  Huss? 
AYhat  spirit  have  they  ever  breathed  more  deeply  imbued 
with  cruelty  and  slaughter  than  the  edict  of  Lateran  to 
kings  and  magistrates  to  extirpate  heretics  from  the  face  of 
the  earth  ?  The  principle  on  which  the  sixteenth  canon  of 
the  third  Council  of  Lateran  proceeds  covers  the  doctrine 
of  mental  reservations.  If  the  end  justify  the  means,  if  we 
can  be  perjured  with  impunity  to  protect  the  authority  of 
the  priesthood,  a  good  intention  will  certainly  sanctify  any 
other  lie,  and  a  man  may  be  always  sure  that  he  is  free  from 
sin  if  he  can  only  be  sure  of  his  allegiance  to  Rome  and  his 
antipathy  to  heretics. 

The  doctrine  of  probability  is  in  full  accordance  with  the 
spirit  of  Papacy  in  substituting  authority  for  evidence  and 
making  the  opinions  of  men  the  arbiters  of  faith.^  And 
yet  these  three  cardinal  principles  of  intention,  mental  reser- 
vation, and  probability,  which  are  so  thoroughly  and  com- 
pletely Papal,  cover  the  whole  ground  of  Jesuitical  atrocity.^ 
How  absurd,  then,  to  pretend  that  the  tendencies  of  the 
Church  should  not  be  gathered  from  the  system  of  the 
Jesuits !     On   the  contrary,  it  is  plain  that  they  are  the 

^  On  the  effects  of  the  doctrine  of  probability  there  are  some  admirable 
remarks  in  Taylor,  vol.  xi.,  pp.  348-351. 

^  The  Jesuit,  Casnedi,  maintained  in  a  published  work  that  at  the  day 
of  judgment  God  will  say  to  many,  "  Come,  my  well-beloved,  you  who 
have  committed  murder,  blasphemed,  etc.,  because  you  believed  that  in  so 
doing  you  were  right."  For  a  popular  exposition  of  the  morality  of  the 
Jesuists  the  reader  is  referred  to  Pascal's  Provincial  Letters  with  Nicole's 
Notes. 


516    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.     [Lett.  VII. 

only  consistent  exponents  of  Romish  doctrine ;  and  should 
that  Church  ever  rise  to  its  former  ascendency  among  the 
nations  of  the  earth,  should  it  ever  reclaim  its  ancient 
authority,  the  type  which  it  would  assume  will  be  impressed 
upon  it  by  the  hands  of  the  Jesuits.  There  is  no  standard, 
however,  by  which  Rome  can  be  judged  that  can  vindicate 
her  character  from  flagrant  immorality.  Her  priests  in  all 
ages  have  been  the  pests  of  the  earth,  and  that  inhuman 
law  which,  for  the  purpose  of  Avedding  them  more  comjiletely 
to  the  interests  of  the  Church,  has  debarred  them  from  one 
of  the  prime  institutions  of  God,  has  made  them  the  dread 
of  innocence  and  the  horror  of  chastity.  I  take  no  pleas- 
ure in  drawing  the  sickening  j)icture  of  their  depravity. 
The  moral  condition  of  Europe  at  the  time  of  the  Reform- 
ation, superinduced  by  the  principles  and  policy  of  the  popes, 
the  profligacy  of  the  clergy,  the  corruption  of  the  people, 
the  gross  superstition  which  covered  the  nations, — these  are 
the  fruits  of  Palpal  infallibility.  That  apostate  community 
commenced  its  career  by  unsettling  the  standards  of  truth 
and  knowledge.  Skepticism  prepared  the  way  for  licen- 
tiousness. When  the  standard  of  truth  was  gone  the 
standard  of  morals  could  not  abide ;  and  as  fixed  principles 
were  removed  nothing  remained  but  the  authority  of  Rome, 
who  usurped  the  place  of  God,  became  the  arbiter  of  truth 
to  the  understanding  and  of  morals  to  the  heart  by  making 
her  own  interests,  her  avarice  and  ambition,  the  standard 
of  both. 


LETTER  VII. 

INFALLIBILITY   AND    SUPERSTITION. 

When  our  Saviour  declared  to  the  woman  of  Samaria, 
God  is  a  Spirit  and  they  that  worship  Him  must  worship 
Him  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  He  announced  in  this  sublime 
proposition  the  just  distinction  between  pure  and  undefiled 


Lett.  VII.]         INFALLIBILITY   AND   SUPERSTITION.  517 

religion  and  the  various  forms  of  superstition,  idolatry  and 
will- worship.  That  the  highest  felicity  of  man  is  to  be 
found  alone  in  sympathetic  alliance  with  the  Author  of  his 
being  is  the  dictate  alike  of  experience,  philosophy  and 
Scripture.  To  restore  the  communion  which  sin  has  inter- 
rupted, to  transform  man  again  into  the  image  of  his  ]Maker, 
and  to  fit  his  natui'e  to  receive  communications  of  Divine 
love,  is  the  scope  and  purpose  of  the  Christian  Revelation. 
Harmonious  fellowship  with  God  necessarily  presupposes 
a  knowledge  of  His  character,  since  it  is  an  interchange 
of  friendship  which  cannot  be  conceived  when  the  parties 
are  strangers  to  each  other.  Hence,  the  foundation  of 
religion  must  be  laid  in  a  just  (though  from  the  nature  of 
the  case  it  must  be  inadequate)  conception  of  the  attributes 
of  Deity,  a  proper  apprehension  of  His  moral  economy,  and 
a  firm  belief  of  that  amazing  condescension  by  which  He 
becomes  conversable  with  men.  He  that  cometh  to  God 
must  believe  that  He  is,  and  that  He  is  a  rewarder  of  them 
that  diligently  seek  Him.  The  opposite  extremes  of  true 
religion,  both  equally  founded  in  ignorance  of  God,  though 
under  diiFerent  forms  of  application,  are  superstition  and 
Atheism.  From  Atheism — which,  as  it  dispenses  with  the 
sanctions  of  decency  and  morality,  is  a  prolific  fountain  of 
bitterness  and  death — proceed  the  w^aters  of  infidelity,  blas- 
phemy, profaneness  and  impiety ;  from  superstition — which 
distinguished  philosophers^  in  ancient  and  modern  times, 
have  pronounced  to  be  more  disastrous  to  the  interest  of 
man  than  Atheism  itself — flow  the  streams  of  idolatry, 
fanaticism  and  spiritual  bondage.  By  a  fatality  of  error, 
which  seems  to  be  characteristic  of  this  grand  apostasy,  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  at  once  the  patron  of  Atheism  and  the 
parent  of  superstition.^     Intent  upon  nothing  but  her  own 

1  Plutarcli  and  Bacon.  Both  have  drawn  the  contrast  between  Atheism 
and  snperstition,  and  both  have  expressed  the  opinion  that  Atheism  is  the 
more  harmless  of  the  two.  Warburton,  in  his  Divine  Legation,  haa 
reviewed  tlie  sentiments  of  both  with  liis  nsual  ability  and  force. 

-  That  I  am  not  singular  in  ascribing  to  tiie  same  cause  in  diflerent 


518    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.     [Lett.  VII. 

aggrandizement,  she  asks  of  men  only  the  decencies  of 
external  homage ;  and  so  tliey  are  content  to  swell  her  train 
and  increase  her  power,  it  is  a  matter  of  comparative  indif- 
ference whether  they  acknowledge  the  existence  of  God, 
reverence  His  truth,  love  His  character  or  yield  obedience 
to  His  laws.  Her  arbitrary  pretensions  to  infallible  author- 
ity disgust  the  intelligent,  and  while,  like  the  heathen  phil- 
osophers and  the  Pagan  priests,  who  occupied  a  higher  form 
of  knowledge  than  pertained  to  the  vulgar,  they  silently 
acquiesce  in  existing  institutions,  they  maintain  in  their 
hearts  a  profound  contempt  for  the  whole  system  of  popular 
delusion. 

That  the  Church  of  Rome  encourages  a  mean  and  slavish 
superstition  will  sufficiently  appear  from  considering  the 
nature  of  superstition  itself.  According  to  the  etymology 
of  Vossius,^  it  denotes  religious  excess.     Any  corruption  of 

aspects  such  opposite  effects,  will  be  seen  from  the  following  passages  in 
works  which  have  very  few  points  of  coincidence : 

"  For  mfidelity  and  superstition  are,  for  the  most  part,  near  allied,  as  pro- 
ceeding from  the  same  weakness  of  judgment  or  same  corruption  of  heart. 
Those  guilty  fears  and  appreliensions  of  an  avenging  Deity  which  drive 
some  persons  into  superstition  do  as  naturally  drive  others  of  a  more  hard 
and  stubborn  temper  into  infidelity  or  Atheism.  The  same  causes,  work- 
ing differently  in  different  persons  or  in  the  same  person  at  different  times, 
produce  both,  and  it  has  been  a  common  observation,  justifiable  by  some 
noted  instances,  that  no  men  whatever  have  been  more  apt  to  exceed  in 
superstition  at  the  sight  of  danger  than  those  who  at  other  times  have  been 
most  highly  profane." — Waterland's  "Works,  vol.  viii.,  pp.  57,  58. 

"Atheism  and  superstitioii  are  of  the  same  origin  ;  they  both  have  tlieir 
rise  from  the  same  cause,  the  same  defect  in  the  mind  of  man — our  want 
of  capacity  in  discerning  the  truth,  and  natural  ignorance  of  the  Divine 
essence.  Men  that  from  their  most  early  youth  have  not  been  imbued 
with  the  principles  of  the  true  religion,  or  have  not  afterward  continued  to 
be  strictly  educated  in  the  same,  are  all  in  great  danger  of  falling  either 
into  tlie  one  or  the  other,  according  to  tlie  difference  tliere  is  in  tlie  temper- 
ament and  complexion  they  are  of,  the  circumstances  tliey  are  in,  and  tlie 
company  they  converse  with." — Second  part  of  the  Fable  of  the  Bees, 
p.  374,  quoted  by  Waterland,  ibidem. 

*  "  Quando  in  cultu  ultra  modum  legitimum  aliquid  superest,  sive 
quando  cultus  modum  rectum  superstat  atque  excedit." — Vossii,  Etymo- 
logicum  in  Superstitio. 

"But  the  word"  [superstition],  says  Waterland,  "proi)erly  imports  any 


Lett.  VII.]  INFALLIBILITY   AND   SUPERSTITION.  519 

tlie  true  religion,  cveiy  modification  of  its  doctrines  or 
addition  to  its  precepts,  comes,  according  to  this  view,  under 
the  head  of  superstition.  In  the  estimation  of  others,  its 
derivation  imports  a  species  of  idolatry  founded  on  the  im- 
23ression  that  the  souls  of  the  departed  preserve  their  inte- 
rest in  sublunary  things.^  This  sense  is  evidently  embraced 
in  the  wider  meaning  of  religious  excess,  and  we  may  con- 
sequently adopt  with  safety  the  more  general  acceptation 
which  the  first  etymology  naturally  suggests. 

The  causes  of  superstition,  as  developed  by  illustrious 
writers  of  antiquity  as  well  as  by  modern  philosophers  and 
divines,  in  unison  with  the  voice  of  universal  experience, 
may  be  traced  to  the  influence  of  zeal  or  fear  in  minds 
unenlightened  by  the  knowledge  of  God.^  Plutarch  and 
Bacon  concur  in  making  the  reproach  or  contumely  of  the 
Divine  Being,  in  ascribing  to  Him  a  character  which  He 
does  not  deserve,  of  imperfection,  weakness,  cruelty  and 
revenge,  an  essential  element  of  this  religious  excess.  Tay- 
lor^ has  copiously  declaimed  on  fear  as  the  fruitful  source 
of  superstitious  inventions.  Hooker*  has  shown  that  an 
ignorant  zeal  is  as  prolific  in  corruptions  as  servile  dread ; 
and  Bentley^  has  proved  that  a  multitude  of  observances, 
which  first  commenced  in  simple  superstition,  were  turned 

religious  excesses,  either  as  to  matter,  manner  or  degree.  There  may  be  a 
superstitious  awe  when  it  is  wrong  placed,  or  is  of  a  wrong  kind,  or  exceeds 
in  measure ;  and  whenever  we  speak  of  a  superstitious  belief,  or  worship,  or 
practice,  we  always  intend  some  kind  of  religious  excess.  Any  false  relig- 
ion, or  false  i)art  of  a  true  one,  is  a  species  of  superstition,  because  it  is 
more  than  it  should  be,  and  betokens  excess." — Waterland,  ibidem. 

^  Warburton  gives  a  different  explanation :  "  The  Latin  word  supersiiiio 
hath  a  reference  to  the  love  we  bear  to  our  children  in  the  desire  that  they 
should  survive  us,  being  formed  upon  the  observation  of  certain  religious 
practices  deemed  efficacious  for  procuring  that  happy  event." — Div.  Leg., 
b.  iii.,  §  6.  For  the  view  in  the  text,  see  Taylor,  vol.  v.,  p.  127,  Heber's 
edition. 

'^  Timor  inanis  deorum.   Cic.  de  Nat,  Deo.  i.  42. 

s  Vol.  v..  Sermon  ix.,  pp.  126-139. 

*  Ecclesiast.  Polity,  b.  v.,  sect.  3.  The  reader  will  find  it  an  exquisite 
passage,  but  it  is  too  long  to  introduce  here. 

*  Sermon  upon  Popery,  vol.  iii.,  Works,  pp.  253,  254. 


520     ARGUMENTS   FOR  APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.   [Lett.  VIL 

by  the  artful  policy  of  Rome  into  sources  of  profit,  so  that 
the  dreams  of  enthusiasts  and  the  extravagance  of  ascetics 
received  the  sanction  of  infallible  authority,  and  were  pro- 
claimed as  expressions  of  the  will  of  God.  From  the  fol- 
lies of  mystics,  the  excesses  of  fanatics,  the  legends  of  mar- 
tyrs and  the  frauds  of  the  priesthood,  whatever  could  be 
converted  into  materials  of  power  or  made  available  to 
purposes  of  gain  has  been  craftily  selected;  and  Romanism 
as  it  now  stands  is  so  widely  removed  from  the  simplicity 
of  the  Gospel  that  only  enough  of  similitude  is  preserved  to 
make  its  deformity  more  clear  and  disgusting.  It  sustains, 
in  fact,  the  same  relations  to  primitive  Christianity  which 
ancient  Paganism  sustained  to  the  primeval  revelations 
imparted  to  our  race.  It  bears — to  accommodate  a  simile 
of  Bacon's — the  same  resemblance  to  the  true  religion  which 
an  ape  bears  to  a  man.  To  develop  the  corruptions  of  the 
Papal  hierarchy,  which  stamp  that  Church  with  the  impress 
of  superstition,  would  be  to  transcribe  its  distinctive  doc- 
trines and  peculiar  practices.  The  range  of  discussion 
would  be  too  vast  for  a  limited  essay.  I  shall  therefore 
content  myself  with  briefly  showing  how  completely  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  ancient 
Paganism.^ 

The  Pagan  tendencies  of  Rome  appear,  in  the  first  place, 
from  the  appeal  which  she  makes  to  the  assistance  of  the  senses 
in  aiding  the  conception  and  directing  the  worship  of  the 
Supreme  Being.^  But  in  tracing  the  origin  of  transubstantia- 
tion,  and  the  consequent  absurdity  of  the  Mass,  we  are  struck 
with  another  coincidence  between  the  practices  and  doctrines 

^  See  this  subject  fully  aud  elaborately  discussed  in  Gale's  Court  of  the 
Gentiles,  part  iii.,  book  ii.,  chap.  ii. 

Bishop  Horsley  says :  "  The  Church  of  Kome  is  at  this  day  a  corrupt 
Chui-ch,  a  Church  corrupted  with  idolatry — with  idolatry  very  nuieii  the 
same  in  kind  and  in  degree  with  the  worst  tliat  ever  prevailed  among  the 
Egyptians  or  the  Canaanites,  till  within  one  or  two  centuries,  at  the  most, 
of  the  time  of  Moses." — Dissert,  on  Prophecies  of  the  Messiah  Dispersed 
among  the  Heathen,  Works,  vol.  ii.,  p.  289. 

'^  For  a  discussion  of  this  point  see  pp.  373-377  of  this  work. 


Lett.  YII.]  INFALLIBILITY    AND    SUPERSTITION.  521 

of  Rome  and  the  rites  and  customs  of  Pagau  antiquity.  That 
the  terms  and  phrases  and  peculiar  ceremonies  which  were 
applied  to  the  mysteries  of  the  heathen  supei'stition  have 
been  transferred  to  the  institutions  of  the  Christian  system, 
and  have  vitiated  and  corrupted  the  sacraments  of  the 
Gospel,  is  now  generally  admitted.^     It  is  in  the  teachings 

'  The  following  extract  from  Casaubon's  sixteenth  Exercitation  on  the 
Annals  of  Baronius  will  sustain  the  assertion  of  the  text : 

"  Pii  patres,  quum  intelligerent,  quo  facilius  ad  veritatis  amorem  cor- 
ruptas  superstitione  mentes  traducerent ;  et  verba  sacrorum  illorum  quam- 
plurima,  in  suos  usus  transtulerunt ;  et  cum  doctrinse  verse  capita  aliquot 
sic  tractarunt,  turn  ritus  etiam  nonnullos  ejusmodi  instituerunt ;  ut  vide- 
antur  cum  Paulo  dicere  gentibus  voluisse,  a  ayvoowrec  EvaejietTE,  ravra 
Ka-a-j'yeAXo/xEv  v/uv.  Hinc  igitur  est,  quod  sacramenta  patres  appellarunt 
mysteria,  jivrjaELg^  T£7.ETag,  TeAEiuoeic,  e7ro7rre«af,  sive  Eiroipscac,  TETlEOTTigia  • 
interdum  etiam,  ogyiaj  sed  rarius ;  peculiariter  vero  eucharistiam  te?ietuv 
teIettjv.  Dicitur  etiam  autonomastice  to  ^va-rjgtov  aut  numero  multitudinis 
ra  [iva-7]gLa.  Apud  patres  passim  de  sacra  communione  leges  (pgiKTa 
/ivariigia  vel  to  Evrrogg/jTov  fivaTTjgiov:  Gregorio  Magno,  'magnum  et  pa- 
vendum  mysterium.'  MvEiadai.  in  veterum  monumentis  soepe  leges  pro 
coense  dominicae  fieri  jiarticeps :  fJ-vr/acv  pro  ipsa  actione ;  /nvaTr/g  est  sacer- 
dos,  qui  etiam  dicitur  o  /nvaTayuyuv  et  o  lEgoTElEaTtjQ.  In  liturgiis  Grascis  et 
alibi  etiam  v  isga  teXett]  et  tj  Kgv<pia  km  etl^o^oq  teIett]  est  eucharistia. 
Quemadmodum  autem  gradus  quidem  in  mysteriis  paganicis  servati 
sunt,  sic  Dionysius  universam  tuv  teAetuv  t7/v  lEgovjiav  traditionem  sacra- 
mentorum  distiiiguit  in  tres  actiones,  quae  et  ritibus  et  temporibus  erant 
divisse;  prima  est  purgatio ;  altera  initiatio;  tertia  consummdtio.  Spem 
meliorem  morientibus  attulisse  mysteria  Attica  dicebat  paulo  anteM.  Tul- 
lius.  Patres,  contra,  certam  salutem  et  vitam  seternam  Christi  mysteria 
digne  percipientibus  affere,  confirmabant ;  qui  ilia  contemnerent,  servari 
non  posse;  finem  vero  et  fructum  ultimum  sacramentorum,  c?ei[^ca<tone7rt, 
dicere  non  dubitarunt,  quum  scirent  vanarum  superstitionum  auctores, 
suis  epoptis  eum  honorem  audere  spondere.  Passim  igitur  legas  apud 
patres,  tt/c  isgar  /ivoTayuyiac  TE?iOC  Eivai  dEiuatv,  finem  sacramentorum  esse, 
ut  qui  vera  fide  ilia  perciperent,  in  futura  vita  dii  evadant.  Athanasius 
verbo  6Eo~oiEicdai  in  earn  rem  est  usus ;  quod  mox  ab  eodem  explicatur, 
participatione  spiritus  conjungimur  deitati.  De  symbolis  sacramentorum 
per  quce  divinae  illaj  ceremoniae  celebrantur,  nihil  attinet  hoc  loco  dicere ; 
illud  vero  quod  est  et  appellatum  fidei  symbolum,  diversi  est  generis  et 
fidelibus  tesserae  usum  praestat  per  quam  se  mutuo  agnoscunt,  qui  pietati 
Sacramento  dixerunt;  cujus  modi  tesseras  fui:<se  etiam  in  paganorum 
mysteriis  ostendimus.  Formulae  illi  in  mysteriis  peragendis  usurpatae, 
procid  este  profani,  rcspondet  in  liturgia  haec  per  diaconos  pronuntiari 
solita;  omnes  catechumeni,  foras  discedete,  omnes  possessi,  omnes  non 
initiati.    Noctu  i-itus  multi  in  mysteriis  peregebantur ;  noctu  etiam  ini- 


522    ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.     [Lett.  YII. 

of  heatlien  priests,  in  secret  orgies  of  gross  impiety  and 
flagrant  indecency,  and  not  in  the  instructions  of  Christ 
and  His  Apostles,  that  we  are  to  look  for  the  mysteries 
which  in  the  Papal  sect  envelop  the  seals  of  the  Christian 
covenant.  As  the  progress  of  corruption  is  always  down- 
ward, what  Avas  begun  in  mystery  ended  in  absurdity;  the 
extravagant  terms  in  which  the  Fathers  described  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  supper  in  evident  rivalry  of  the  Eleusinian 
mysteries,  the  unnatural  awe  with  which  they  invested  a 
simple  institution,  led  in  after  times  to  this  form  of  idolatry, 
which  transcended  the  follies  of  their  Pagan  guides. 

But  in  no  part  of  the  Papal  system  is  the  spirit  of 
heathenism  more  completely  carried  out  than  in  the  re- 
spect and  veneration  which  are  paid  to  the  persons  and 
relics  of  the  saints.  The  deification  of  distinguished  bene- 
factors was  perhaps  the  last  form  in  which  ancient  idolatry 
corrupted  the  objects  of  worship.  The  canonizations  of 
Pome  differ  but  little  in  their  spirit  and  tendency  from  the 
apotheoses  of  antiquity.  The  records  of  martyrdom  have 
been  explored,  fabulous  legends  promoted  into  history,  for 

tiatio  Cliristianorum  inchoabatur ;  Gaudentio  nominatur  splendidissima 
nox  vigiliariim.  Quod  autem  dicebamus  de  silentio  in  sacris  opertaneis 
servari  a  paginis  solito,  id  institutum  veteres  Christiani  sic  probarunt,  ut 
religiosa  ejus  observatioiie  mystas  oinnes  longe  superarint.  Quemad- 
modum  igitur  dicit  Seneca,  sanctiora  sacrorum  solis  initiatis  fuisse  nota, 
et  Jamblichus  de  philosophia  Pytbagoreorum  in  ~a  aizogQijTa,  quae  efferi 
non  poterant,  et  ra  EK(f>opa,  quae  foras  effere  jus  erat;  ita  universam  doc- 
trinam  Christianam  veteres,  distinguebant  in  ra  eK^opa,  id  est,  ea  quae 
enuntiari  apud  omnes  poterant,  et  ra  a-izogg7jTa  arcana  temere  non  vul- 
ganda:  inquit  Basilius,  dogmata  silentio  premuniur,  pi-ceconia  publicantur. 
Chrysostomus  de  iis  qui  baptizantur  pro  mortuis :  ciipio  quidem  perspicue 
rem  dicere  ;  sed  propter  non  initiatos  non  audeo  ;  hi  interpretationem  reddiml 
diffieiliorem ;  dum  nos  cogunP,  aut  perspicue  non  dicere,  aut  arcana,  quce 
taceri  detent,  apud  ipsos  efferre.  Atque  ut  e^oQxetadai  ra  fivcTTjpta  dixerunt 
pagani,  de  iis  qui  arcana  mysteriorura  evulgabant,  ita  dixit  Dionysius, 
vide  ne  enmities  aut  parum  reverenter  habeas  sancta  sanctoi'um.  Passim  apud 
Augustinum  leges,  sacramentum  quod  norunt  fideles.  In  Jobanncra  tract, 
xi.  autem  sic:  Omnes  catechiimeni  jam  credunt  in  nomine  Christi.  Sed 
Jesus  non  sk  credit  iis.  Mox,  Interrogemus  catechumennm,  3Ianducas 
carnem  filii  hominis ?  nescit  quid  dicimv^.  Iterum,  Nesciunt  catechinneni  quid 
accipiant  Christiani;  erubescant  ergo  quia  nesciunt." 


Lett.  VII-l         INFALLIBILITY   AND   SUPERSTITION.  523 

the  purpose  of  exalting  to  the  rank  and  dignity  of  inter- 
cessors with  the  Fatlier  a  liost  of  obscure  and  worthless 
individuals,  some  of  whom  were  the  creatures  of  fiction, 
others  rank  and  disgusting  impostors,  and  a  multitude  still 
a  disgrace  to  humanity.  The  eloquent  declamation  of  the 
Fathers  on  the  glory  which  attached  to  a  crown  of  martyr- 
dom, the  distinguished  rewards  in  a  future  state  which  they 
confidently  promised  to  those  who  should  shed  their  blood 
for  religion,  combined  Avith  the  assurance  of  corresponding 
honours  and  a  lasting  reputation  upon  earth,  were  suited  to 
encourage  imposture  and  frauds — leading  some  to  seek  in 
the  fires  of  persecution  a  full  expiation  for  past  iniquities, 
and  hundreds  more,  when  the  storm  had  abated,  to  magnify 
sufferings  which  had  only  stopped  short  of  death.  It  was 
perfectly  natural  that  the  Primitive  Church  should  concede 
unwonted  tokens  of  gratitude  to  the  memories  of  martyred 
champions  and  the  persons  of  living  confessors.  Nor  are 
we  to  be  astonished  that  their  names  should  be  commem- 
orated with  the  pomp  and  solemnity  of  public  festivals 
among  those  who  had  witnessed  the  signal  effects  of  such 
imposing  institutions  upon  the  zeal  and  energy  of  their 
Pagan  countrymen.  What  at  first  was  extravagant  admira- 
tion, finally  settled  into  feelings  of  devotion;  these  sacred 
heroes  became  invested  with  supernatural  perfections;  from 
mortal  men  they  imperceptibly  grew,  in  the  sentiments  of 
the  multitude,  to  the  awful  dignity  of  demigods  and  sa- 
viours, and  finally  received  that  religious  homage  which 
was  due  exclusively  to  the  King  Eternal.  The  system  of 
Rome  as  it  stands  to-day,  having  confirmed  the  growing 
superstition  of  ages,  is  as  completely  a  system  of  polytheism 
as  that  of  ancient  Egypt  or  Greece.  The  Virgin  jNlary  is 
as  truly  regarded  as  Divine  as  her  famous  prototype  Cy- 
bele  or  Ceres;  and  the  whole  rabble  of  saints  are  as  truly 
adored  in  the  churches  of  Rome  as  the  elegant  gods  of 
Olympus  were  worshipped  in  the  temples  of  Greece.  To 
say  that  the  homage  accorded  to  these  subordinate  divinities 
is  inferior  in  kind  and  different  in  principle  is  a  feeble  and 


524   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.     [Lett.  VII. 

worthless  evasion.  Magnificent  temples  are  erected  to  their 
memories,  in  which  their  worship  is  "adorned  with  the 
accustomed  pomp  of  libations  and  festivals,  altars  and 
sacrifices."  In  the  solemn  oblation  of  the  Mass,  which, 
according  to  the  Papal  creed,  is  the  most  awful  mystery  (jf 
religion  and  the  highest  act  of  supreme  adoration,  the 
honour  of  the  saints  is  as  conspicuous  a  part  of  the  service 
as  the  glory  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.^  Their  relics  are 
conceived  to  be  invested  with  supernatural  power;  their 
bones  or  nails,  the  remnants  of  their  dress  or  the  accidental  ap- 
pendages of  their  person,  are  beheld  with  awful  veneration 
or  sought  with  incredible  avidity,  being  regarded  as  pos- 
sessed of  a  charm  like  "  the  eye  of  ne^Yt  and  the  toe  of  frog," 
which  no  machinations  can  resist,  no  evil  successfully  assail. 
As  the  name  of  God  sanctifies  the  altars  consecrated  to  His 
worship,  so  the  names  of  these  saints  sanctify  the  altars 
devoted  to  their  memories;  and  vast  distinctions  are  made 
in  the  price  and  value  of  the  sacrifice  according  to  the  spot 
on  which  the  same  priest  offers  precisely  the  very  same 
victim.  In  the  case  of  these  privileged  altars  it  is  evidently 
the  name  of  the  saint  which  gives  peculiar  value  to  the 
gift,  though  that  gift  is  declared  to  be  none  other  than  the 
Son  of  God  himself.  To  these  circumstances,  which  un- 
questionably indicate  more  than  mortal  respect,  may  be 
added  the  vast  importance  which  the  worship  and  creed  of 
Home  attach  to  their  pretended  intercession.     They  execute 

1  The  following  prayer  occurs  in  the  Ordinary  of  the  Mass :  "Eeceive, 
O  Holy  Trinity,  this  oblation  which  we  make  to  Thee  in  memory  of  the 
Passion,  Eesurrection  and  Ascension  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  in 
honour  of  the  blessed  Mary,  ever  a  Virgin,  of  blessed  .John  Baptist,  the 
holy  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  and  of  all  the  Saints ;  that  it  may  be  avail- 
able to  their  honour  and  oin-  salvation ;  and  may  they  vouchsafe  to  in- 
tercede for  us  in  heaven  whose  memory  we  celebrate  on  earth.  Through 
the  same  Christ  our  Lord." — England's  Translation  of  the  Rom.  Miss., 
p.  281.  Here  Christ,  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  is  distinctly  said  to  be 
offered  up  in  honour  of  all  the  saints.  What  can  that  man  withhold  from 
them  who  gives  them  liis  Saviour  ?  His  heart  surely  is  a  small  boon  com- 
pared with  this  august  oblation.  And  yet  Trent  has  the  audacity  to  de- 
clare that  they  are  not  worshipped  with  homage  truly  Divine  I 


Lett.  VII.]  INFALLIBILITY   AND   SUPERSTITION.  525 

a  priestly  function  at  the  riglit  hand  of  Gocl  which  it  is 
hard  to  distinguish  from  the  office  of  the  Redeemer;  in 
fact,  their  performances  in  heaven  seem  to  be  designed  to 
stinudate  the  lazy  diligence  of  Chri.st,  and  to  remind  Him 
of  the  wants  of  His  brethren,  which  the  absorbing  contem- 
plation of  His  own  glory  might  otherwise  exclude  from  His 
thoughts.  It  is  the  saints  who  keep  us  fi'csh  in  the  memory 
of  God,  and  sustain  our  cause  against  the  careless  indiffer- 
ence of  an  advocate  whom  Rome  has  discovered  not  to  be 
sufficiently  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities, 
though  Paul  declares  that  he  sympathizes  in  all  points  with 
His  brethren,  and  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for 
them. 

To  these  multiplied  saints,  in  accordance  with  the  true 
spirit  of  ancient  Paganism,  different  departments  of  nature 
are  intrusted,  different  portions  of  the  universe  assigned. 
Some  protect  their  votaries  from  fire,  and  others  from  the 
power  of  the  storm.  Some  guard  from  the  pestilence  that 
walketh  in  darkness,  and  others  from  the  arrow  that  flietli 
at  noonday.  Some  are  gods  of  the  hills,  and  others  of 
the  plains.  Their  worshippers,  too,  like  the  patrons  of  ju- 
dicial astrology,  have  distributed  among  them  and  allotted 
to  their  special  providence  and  care  the  different  limbs  and 
members  of  the  human  frame.  It  is  the  province  of  one  to 
heal  disorders  of  the  throat;  another  cures  diseases  of 
the  eye.  One  is  the  shield  from  the  violence  of  fever,  and 
another  preserves  from  the  horrors  of  the  plague.  In  ad- 
dition to  this,  each  faithful  Papist  is  constantly  attended  by 
a  guardian  angel  and  a  guardian  saint,  to  whom  he  may  flee 
in  all  his  troubles,  whose  care  of  his  person  never  slumbers, 
whose  zeal  for  his  good  is  never  fatigued.  If  this  be  not 
the  Pagan  system  of  tutelar  divinities  and  household  gods, 
it  is  hopeless  to  seek  for  resemblances  among  objects  pre- 
cisely alike ;  for  a  difference  of  name,  where  no  other  dis- 
crepancies are  discernible,  is  sufficient  to  establish  a  differ- 
ence of  things  !  The  fatherly  interest,  the  unceasing  vigil- 
ance, the  deep  devotion  with  which  these  heavenly  spirits 


526    ARGUMENTS   FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.     [Lett.  VII. 

superintend  the  affairs  of  the  faithful,  cannot  be  explained 
upon  any  principles  which  deny  to  them  the  essential  att«i- 
butes  of  God.  The  prayers  which  are  offered  at  their 
shrines,  the  incense  which  is  burnt  before  their  images,  the 
awful  sanctity  which  invests  their  relics,  the  stupendous 
miracles  which  the  very  enunciation  of  their  names  is  be- 
lieved to  have  achieved,  are  signal  proofs  that  they  are  re- 
garded as  really  and  truly  Divine.^     The  nice  distinctions  of 

^  The  following  may  be  taken  as  a  specimen  of  the  honour  which  is  as- 
cribed to  the  saints.  Let  the  reader  judge  whether  more  importance  be 
attached  to  the  intercession  of  Christ  than  to  the  prayers  of  His  departed 
servants : 

"  O  God,  who  wast  pleased  to  send  blessed  Patrick,  thy  bishop  and  con- 
fessor, to  preach  thy  glory  to  the  Gentiles,  grant  that  by  his  merits  and  in- 
tercession we  may  through  Thy  mercy  be  enabled  to  perform  what  Thou 
commandest."  Take  again  the  Collect  for  St.  George's  Day:  "O  God, 
who,  by  the  merits  and  prayers  of  blessed  George,  thy  martyr,  fillest  the 
hearts  of  thy  people  with  joy,  mercifully  grant  that  the  blessing  we  a.sk 
in  his  name  (per  eum)  we  may  happily  obtain  by  Thy  grace."  Festival 
of  St.  Peter's  Chair,  at  Eome,  Collect :  "  O  God,  who,  by  delivering  to 
Thy  blessed  Apostle  Peter  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  didst  give 
him  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing,  grant  that,  by  his  intercession,  we 
may  be  freed  from  the  bonds  of  our  sins."  In  what  is  called  the  Secret  it 
is  said :  "  May  the  intercession,  we  beseech  Thee,  O  Lord,  of  blessed  Peter, 
the  Apostle,  render  the  prayers  and  offerings  of  Thy  Church  acceptable  to 
Thee,  that  the  mysteries  we  celebrate  in  his  honour  may  obtain  for  us  the 
pardon  of  our  sins." 

The  Apostles  are  addressed  in  the  following  hymn,  as  the  dispensers 
alike  of  temporal  and  spiritual  blessings  to  their  earthly  suppliants : 

"Vos  Steculorum  Judices, 
Et  vera  mundi  lumina, 
Votis  precamur  cordium ; 
Audite  voces  supplicum. 
Qui  templa  coeli  clauditis 
Serasque  verbo  solvitis, 
Nos  a  reatu  noxios 
Solvi  jubete,  quaosumus. 
PrcBcepta  quorum  protinus 
Languor  salusque  sentiunt 
Sanate  mente  languidas  ; 
Augete  nos  virtutibus." 

0  you,  true  lights  of  human  kind, 
And  judges  of  the  world  designed, 


Lett.  VII.]  INFALLIBILITY   AND   SUPERSTITION.  527 

worship  which  the  Church  of  Rome  artfully  endeavours  to 
draw  for  the  purpose  of  evading  the  dreadful  imputation 
of  idolatry  are  purely  fictitious  and  imaginary.  That  the 
language  in  which  alone  the  Fathers  of  Trent  recognized 
the  Scriptures  as  authentic  is  too  poor  to  express  the  sub- 
tlety of  these  refinements,  is  a  violent  presumption  against 
them,  and  that  the  Greek  from  which  they  are  extracted 
does  not  justify  these  niceties  of  devotion,  must  be  admitted 
by  all  who  are  capable  of  appreciating  the  force  of  words. 
Certain  it  is  that  no  sanction  is  found  in  the  Scriptures  for 
the  arbitrary  gradations  of  worship  which  the  Papacy  is  anx- 
ious to  inculcate  under  the  terms  oooXeia  (dulia),  UTzsp-dookeia 
(hyper-dulia),  and  Xazpeta  (latria).^  AVhatever  forced  inter- 
To  you  our  hearty  vows  we  show  : 

Hear  your  petitioners  below. 

The  gates  of  heaven  by  your  command 

Are  fastened  close  or  open  stand; 

Grant,  we  beseech  you,  then,  that  we 

From  sinful  slavery  may  be  free. 

Sickness  and  health  your  power  obey; 

This  comes,  and  that  you  drive  away. 

Then  from  our  souls  all  sickness  chase, 

Let  healing  virtues  take  its  place. 

These  extracts  may  be  found  in  the  Vespers  or  Evening  Office  of  the 
English  Papists.  The  Secret  is  from  the  Pocket  Missal.  See  Bamp.  Lect. 
for  1807,  from  which  I  have  taken  them,  not  having  the  original  works 
at  hand. 

^  "  They  pretend  that  the  reverence  which  they  pay  to  images  is  ei6u7o6ov- 
Icia  (service  of  images),  but  deny  that  it  is  eiSulolarpeia  (worship  of 
images).  For  in  this  manner  they  express  themselves  when  tliey  main- 
tain that  the  reverence  which  they  call  dulia  may  be  given  to  statues  or 
pictures  without  injury  to  God.  They  consider  themselves,  therefore, 
liable  to  no  blame,  while  they  are  only  tlie  servants  of  their  idols  and  not 
worshippers  of  them,  as  though  worship  were  not  rather  inferior  to  service. 
And  yet,  while  they  seek  to  shelter  themselves  under  a  Greek  term,  they 
contradict  themselves  in  the  most  childish  manner.  For  since  the  Greek 
word  ^arpeveiv  signifies  nothing  else  but  to  worship,  what  they  say  is  equiva- 
lent to  a  confession  that  they  adore  their  images,  but  without  adoration. 
Nor  can  they  justly  object  that  I  am  trying  to  ensnare  them  with  words : 
they  betray  their  own  ignorance  in  their  endeavours  to  raise  a  mist  be- 
fore the  eyes  of  the  simple.  But,  however  eloquent  they  may  be,  they 
will  never  be  able,  by  their  rhetoric,  to  prove  one  and  the  same  thing  to 


528    AllGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.    [Lett.  VII. 

pretations  may  be  put  upon  the  language  of  the  Romish 
Breviaries  in  the  prayers  which  are  addressed  to  the  other 
saints,  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  is  evidently  in  the  highest 
form  of  supreme  adoration.  She  is  not  only  invoked  as 
being  likely  to  prove  a  successful  intercessor  with  the  Sa- 
viour, but  solemnly  entreated  to  command  her  Son  to  answer 
the  petitions  of  her  servants.^     She  is  exalted  above  all  that 

be  two  different  things.  Let  them  point  out,  I  say,  a  difference,  in  fact, 
that  they  may  be  accounted  different  from  ancient  idolaters.  For  as  an 
adulterer  or  homicide  will  not  escape  the  imputation  of  guilt  by  giving 
his  crime  a  new  and  arbitrary  name,  so  it  is  absurd  that  these  persons 
should  be  exculpated  by  the  subtle  invention  of  a  name,  if  they  really 
differ  in  no  respect  from  those  idolaters  whom  they  themselves  are  con- 
strained to  condemn.  But  their  case  is  so  far  from  being  different  from 
that  of  former  idolaters  that  the  source  of  all  the  evil  is  a  preposterous 
emulation,  with  which  they  have  rivalled  them  by  their  minds  in  con- 
triving,-and  their  hands  in  forming,  visible  symbols  of  the  Deity." — Cal- 
vin's Inst.,  lib.  i.,  cap.  xi.,  §  11. 

^  This  blasphemous  language,  which  is  justified  by  the  services  of  the 
Church,  was  stoutly  defended  by  Harding  in  his  controversy  with  Bishop 
Jewell.  "  If  now,"  says  he,  "  any  spiritual  man,  such  as  St.  Bernard  was, 
deeply  considering  the  great  honour  and  dignity  of  Christ's  mother,  do, 
in  excess  of  mind,  spiritually  sport  with  her,  bidding  her  to  remember 
that  she  is  a  mother,  and  that  thereby  she  has  a  certain  right  to  command 
her  Son,  and  require  in  a  most  sweet  manner  that  she  use  her  right,  is 
this  either  impiously  or  impudently  spoken  ?  Is  not  he,  rather,  most 
impious  and  impudent  that  fiudeth  fault  therewith  ?" 

The  following  note,  which  occurs  in  the  Bampton  Lecture  for  1807, 
p.  238,  presents  an  awful  view  of  the  devotions  which,  in  their  author- 
ized books,  the  English  Papists  render  to  the  Virgin : 

"In  the  common  office  for  her  we  have  the  hymn  Ave  Maria  Stella, 
which  contains  the  following  petitions  ( Vespers,  p.  131)  : 

"  Solve  vincla  rcis, 
Prefer  lumen  cajcis, 
Mala  nostra  pelle, 
Bona  cuncta  posce. 
Monstra  te  esse  matrem, 
Sumat  per  te  preces 
Qui  pro  nobis  natus 
Tulit  esse  tuus." 

The  sinner's  bonds  unbind, 

Our  evils  drive  away, 
Bring  light  unto  the  blind, 

For  grace  and  blessings  pray. 


Lett.  VII.]  INFALLIBILITY    AND   SUPERSTITION.  529 

is  called  God ;  "  she  approaches,"  according  to  Damiani,  a 
celebrated  divine  of  the  eleventh  century — "  she  approaches 
the  golden  tribunal  of  Divine  Majesty,  not  ashing,  but  com- 
manding,  not  a  handmaid,  but  a  mistress."  We  are  taught 
by  Albertus  ^Magnus  that  "  Mary  prays  as  a  daughter,  re- 
quests as  a  sister  and  commands  as  a  mother."  Another 
writer  informs  us  that  "  the  blessed  Virgin,  for  the  salvation 

Thyself  a  mother  show  j 

May  He  receive  thy  prayer, 
Who  for  the  debts  we  owe 

From  thee  would  breathe  our  air. 

"In  the  office  of  Matins  in  Advent  is  the  hlessing,  'Nos,  cum  prole  pia, 
benedicat  Virgo  Maria,'  which  junction  of  the  two  names  in  this  way- 
must  shock  every  true  Christian:  'May  the  Virgin  Mary,  with  lier  pious 
Son,  bless  us.' — Primer,  p.  75.  At  p.  99  we  have  the  hymn  where  she  is 
called  upon  to  'protect  us  at  the  hour  of  death,'  and  she  is  called  'Mother 
of  Grace,'  'Mother  of  Mercy.',  'Mater  gratiae,  mater  misericordia?,  tu  nos 
ab  noste  protege  et  hora  mortis  suscipe.'  At  p.  290  I  find  this  recom- 
mendation to  her:  'O  holy  Mary,  I  commend  myself,  my  soul  and 
body,  to  thy  blessed  trust  and  singular  custody,  and  into  the  bosom  of  thy 
mercy,  this  day  and  daily,  and  at  the  hour  of  my  death ;  and  I  commend 
to  thee  all  my  hope  and  comfort,  all  my  distresses  and  miseries,  my  life  and 
the  end  thereof,  that  by  thy  most  holy  intercession  and  merits  all  my 
works  may  be  directed  and  disposed,  according  to  thine  and  thy  Son's 
will.  Amen.'  My  readers  will  by  this  time  be  both  wearied  and  dis- 
gusted, but  I  must  add  the  prayer  which  immediately  follows:  'O  Mary, 
Mother  of  God  and  gracious  Virgin,  the  true  comforter  of  all  afflicted 
persons  crying  to  thee,  by  that  great  joy  wherewith  thou  wert  comforted 
when  thou  didst  know  our  Lord  Jesus  was  gloriously  risen  from  the  dead, 
be  a  comfort  to  my  soul,  and  vouchsafe  to  help  me  with  thine  and  God's 
only-begotten  Son  in  that  last  day  when  I  shall  rise  again  with  body  and 
soul,  and  shall  give  account  of  all  my  actions ;  to  the  end  that  I  may  be 
able  by  thee,  O  pious  Mother  and  Virgin,  to  avoid  the  sentence  of  per- 
petual damnation,  and  happily  come  to  eternal  joys  with  all  the  elect  of 
God.  Amen.'  It  must  be  remembered,  that  it  is  not  to  what  miglit  be  dis- 
claimed as  obsolete  canons  or  mere  opinions  of  the  Schools  (not  to  any 
fooleries  of  a  St.  Buonaventure  or  Cardinal  Bona)  that  I  am  referring 
the  reader,  but  to  what  is  the  actual  and  daily  pi-acticc  of  the  Romanists 
in  these  kingdoms.  I  can  add  even  the  express  recommendation  of  one 
of  their  bishops." 

How  just  is  the  satire  implied  in  the  pithy  remark  of  Bishop  Bull, 
that  "such  is  the  worship  given  to  the  blessed  Virgin  by  many  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  that  they  deserve  to  be  called  Mariani  rather  tliMU  C'hris- 
tiani!" — Serin,  on  Luke  i.,  48,  49:  Worses,  vol.  i.,  p.  107. 
Vo...  111.-34 


530     ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.   [Lett.  VII. 

of  her  supplicants,  can  not  only  supplicate  her  son  as  other 
saints  do,  but  also  by  her  maternal  authority  command  her 
son.  Therefore  the  Church  prays,  '  Monstro  te  esse  maf.rem  ;' 
as  if  saying  to  the  Virgin,  Supplicate  for  us  after  the  man- 
ner of  a  command  and  with  a  mother's  authority."  To  her 
the  characteristic  titles  of  God,  the  peculiar  offices  of  Christ 
and  the  distinctive  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  clearly  and 
unblushingly  ascribed  in  approved  formularies  of  Papal  de- 
votion.^ If  this  be  not  idolatry,  if  this  be  not  the  worship 
of  the  creature  more  than  the  Creator,  it  is  impossible  to 
understand  the  meaning  of  terms.  If  there  be  in  this  ease 
any  real  distinction  between  douXtta  (dulia)  and  Aazpeia 
(latria),  the  douhia  (dulia)  is  rendered  to  God,  and  the 
larpua  (latria)  to  the  Virgin.  She  is  the  fountain  of  grace, 
and  He  is  the  obedient  servant  of  her  will. 

There  is  a  species  of  superstition  extravagantly  fostered 
by  veneration  for  the  images  and  relics  of  saints,  which  was 
sevei'ely  condemned  by  the  Pagan  philosophers  of  antiquity, 
though  extremely  common  among  their  countrymen,  and  is 
as  warmly  encouraged  by  the  bigoted  priesthood  of  Rome. 
It  consists  in  the  practical  impression  that  there  is  no  grand 
and  uniform  plan  in  the  government  of  the  world,  founded 
in  goodness,  adjusted  in  wisdom  and  accomplished  by  a 
minute  and  controlling  Providence;  but  that  all  the  events 
of  this  sublunary  state  are  single,  insulated  acts,  arising 
from  the  humour  of  different  beings,  suggested,  for  the  most 
part,  by  particular  emergencies,  and  directed  generally  to 

^  In  addition  to  the  proofs  of  this  awful  accusation  furnished  in  tlie  pre- 
ceding note,  I  appeal  to  the  Encyclical  Letter  of  the  Pope,  dated  August 
15,  1832 : 

"We  send  you  a  letter  on  this  most  joyful  day,  on  which  we  celebrate 
a  solemn  festival  commemorative  of  the  triumph  of  the  most  holy  Vir- 
gin, who  was  taken  up  to  heaven  ;  that  she,  whom  we  have  found  our 
patroness  and  preserver  in  all  our  greatest  calamities,  may  also  be  pro- 
pitious to  us  whilst  writing  to  you,  and  guide  our  mind  by  her  heavenly  in- 
spiration to  such  counsels  as  shall  he  most  wholesome  for  the  flock  of  Christ." 
In  the  same  document  the  same  Pope  ascribes  to  this  same  creature  the 
glorious  offices  of  Christ.  He  declares  that  she  is  his  "  chief  confidence," 
"  his  only  ground  of  hope." 


Lett.  VII.]  INFALLIBILITY   AND   SUPERSTITION.  531 

mercenary  ends.  That  it  secured  "deliverance  from  unne- 
cessary terrors  and  exemption  from  false  alarms,"  was  one 
of  the  chief  commendations  of  the  lax  philosophy  of  Epi- 
curus, in  which  religion  and  superstition  were,  contrary  to 
the  opinions  of  the  most  distinguished  sages  of  antiquity, 
strangely  and  absurdly  confounded.  The  legitimate  fear 
of  God  was  involved  in  the  same  condemnation  and  exposed 
to  the  same  severity  of  ridicule  with  the  fear  of  omens, 
prodigies  and  portents.^  To  the  minds  of  the  people,  who 
admitted  a  plurality  of  gods  possessed  of  diiferent  attributes 
and  intent  upon  opposite  designs,  it  was  certainly  impossible 
to  communicate  those  enlarged  conceptions  of  a  harmonious 
scheme  of  Providence  carried  on  by  the  power  of  a  super- 
intending mind,  which  are  only  consistent  with  such  views 
of  the  supremacy  of  one  Being  as  the  philosophers  them- 
selves faintly  apprehended.  Polytheism  must  always  be 
the  parent  of  imaginary  terrors.  The  stability  and  peace 
of  a  well-ordered  mind,  that  unshaken  tranquillity  which 
is  neither  alarmed  at  the  flight  of  birds,  the  coruscations  of 
meteors  nor  eclipses  of  the  moon,  proceeds  from  a  firm  per- 
suasion that  there  is  one  God,  who  sitteth  in  the  heavens 
and  whose  counsel  none  can  resist. 

^  Hence  Virgil  says : 

"  Felix  qui  potuit  rerum  cognoscere  causas, 
Atque  metus  omncs,  et  inexorabile  fatum 
Subjecit  pedibus,  strepitunique  Acherontis  avari." — Georg.  ii.  490. 

Happy  the  man  who,  studying  nature's  laws, 
Through  known  effects  can  trace  the  secret  cause — 
His  mind  possessing  in  a  quiet  state, 
Fearless  of  fortune  and  resigned  to  Fate ! 

Speaking  of  religion,  Lucretius  says  : 

"  Qufe  caput  a  coeli  regionibus  ostendebat, 
Horribili  super  a?pectu  mortalibus  instans." — i.,  65. 

Mankind long  the  tyrant  power 

Of  superstition  swayed,  uplifting  proud 
Her  head  to  heaven,  and  with  horrific  limbs 
Brooding  o'er  earth. — Goode's  Lucretius. 


532     ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.   [LiCTT.  VII. 

To  suppose  that  diiferent  portions  of  the  universe  are 
assigned  to  the  care  of  different  divinities,  possessed  them- 
selves of  contradictory  qualities  and  ruling  their  depart- 
ments by  contradictory  laws,  is  to  maintain — if  the  happi- 
ness of  men  consists  in  their  favour  or  is  at  all  dependent 
upon  obedience  to  their  will — that  we  must  ever  be  the 
victims  of  dread,  unable  to  escape  the  "barking  waves  of 
Scylla,"  without  being  exposed  to  equal  dangers  from 
Charybdis.  Such  are  the  rivalries  and  jealousies  among 
these  conflicting  deities,  such  the  variety  of  their  views 
and  the  discordance  of  their  plans,  that  the  patronage  of 
one  is  always  likely  to  secure  the  malediction  of  the  rest ; 
and  if  one  department  of  nature  be  rendered  subservient  to 
our  comfort,  all  other  elements  are  turned  in  fury  against 
us.  Under  these  circumstances  men's  lives  must  be  passed 
in  continual  apprehension.  They  view  nature  not  as  a 
connected  whole,  conducted  by  general  laws,  in  which  all 
the  parts  have  a  mutual  relation  to  each  other,  but  as  broken 
into  fragments  by  opposing  powers,  made  up  of  the  terri- 
tories of  hostile  princes,  in  which  every  event  is  a  declara- 
tion of  war,  every  appearance,  whether  common  or  acciden- 
tal, a  Divine  prognostic.  To  appease  the  anger  and  to 
secure  the  approbation  of  such  formidable  enemies  will  lead 
to  a  thousand  devices  of  servility  and  ignorance.  Every 
phenomenon  will  be  watched  with  the  intensest  solicitude ; 
the  meteors  of  heaven,  the  thunders  in  the  air,  the  prodigies 
of  earth  will  all  be  pressed  into  the  service  of  religion,  and 
anxiously  questioned  on  the  purposes  of  the  gods.  Charms, 
sorcery  and  witchcraft,  the  multiplied  forms  of  divination 
and  augury,  servile  flattery  and  debasing  adulation,  must  be 
the  abundant  harvest  of  evils  which  is  reaped  from  that 
ignorance  of  Divine  Providence  and  the  stability  of  nature 
which  is  involved  in  the  acknowledgment  of  a  multitude  of 
gods.  Epicurus  distinctly  perceived  the  folly  of  imaginary 
terrors,  but  in  suggesting  a  remedy  overlooked  the  fact  tliat 
the  cause  was  not  to  be  found,  as  he  evidently  thought,  in  the 


Lett.  VII.]  INFALLIBILITY   AND   SUPERSTITION.  533 

admission  of  Providence/  but  in  its  virtual  denial  by  ascrib- 
ing the  course  of  the  world  to  the  distracting  counsels  of  innu- 
merable agents.  Just  conceptions  of  Providence  presuppose 
the  absolute  unity  of  the  Supreme  Being,  and  Polytheism  is 
no  less  fatal  to  the  interests  of  piety  than  Atheism  itself. 

That  the  Church  of  Rome  encourages  that  form  of  super- 
stition which  heathen  philosophers  had  the  perspicacity  to 
condemn,  Avliich  heathen  poets,  such  as  Horace,  Virgil  and 
Lucretius,  endeavoured  to  escape  by  fleeing  to  the  opposite 
extreme  of  irreligion,  and  which  the  very  constitution  of 
our  mind  rebukes  in  its  instinctive  belief  of  the  uniformity 
of  nature,  is  too  apparent  to  need  much  illustration.  The 
account  which  Plutarch  has  given  of  the  religious  excesses 
of  his  countrymen  may  be  applied  with  equal  justice,  but 
with  intenser  severity,  to  the  countless  devices  of  Rome. 
The  same  absurd  and  uncouth  adorations,  rollings  in  the 
mire,  dippings  in  the  sea,  the  same  contortions  of  the  face, 
and  indecent  postures  on  the  earth,  the  same  charms,  sul- 
phurations  and  ablutions,  which  he  indignantly  charges 
upon  the  "■  Greeks,  inventors  of  barbarian  ills,"  are  carried 
to  a  still  more  extravagant  extent  among  the  Papal  invent- 
ors of  worse  than  barbarian  enormities.  The  people  sit 
in  darkness  and  the  valley  of  the  shadow  of  death.  The 
heavens  to  them  are  redundant  with  omens,  the  earth  is 
fraught  A^dth  prodigies,  the  church  is  a  magazine  of  charms, 
and  the  priests  are  potent  and  irresistible  wizards,  who  rule 

1  "  Cfetera,  quae  fieri  in  terris  cceloque  tuentur 
Mortales,  pavidis  cum  pendent  mentibus  saepe, 
EflSciunt  animos  humiles  formidine  divum, 
Depressosque  premunt  ad  terram  ;  propterea  quod, 
Ignorantia  causarum  conferre  deorum 
Cogit  ad  imperium  res,  et  concedcre  rcgnum." — Lucr.  \.,  49. 

Whate'er  in  heaven, 

In  earth  man  sees  mysterious,  shakes  his  mind. 

With  sacred  awe  o'erwhelms  him,  and  his  soul 

Bows  to  the  dust;  the  cause  of  things  concealed 

Once  from  his  vision,  instant  to  the  gods 

All  empire  he  transfers,  all  rule  supreme ; 

And  doubtful  whence  they  spring,  with  headlong  haste 

Calls  them  the  workmanship  of  powers  divine. — Goode's  Lucretius. 


534     ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.   [Lett.  VII. 

the  course  of  nature  and  govern  the  destinies  of  men  by 
the  bones,  images  and  fragments,  real  or  fictitious,  of  the 
slumbering  dead.  In  the  Treasure  of  Exorcisms,  the  Ro- 
man Ritual  and  the  Flagellum  Dtemonum  we  have  minute 
and  specific  directions  for  casting  devils  out  of  the  pos- 
sessed, and  for  extracting  from  these  lying  spirits  a  veracious 
testimony  to  the  distinctive  doctrines  of  the  Papacy.'  The 
holy  water,  the  paschal  wax,  the  consecrated  oil,  medals, 
swords,  bells  and  roses,  hallowed  upon  the  Sunday  called 
Lsetare  Jerusalem,  are  charged  with  the  power  of  conferring 
temjjoral  benedictions  and  averting  spiritual  calamities. 
The  Agnus  Dei  is  a  celebrated  charm  in  the  annals  of 
Romish  sorcery.^  It  possesses  the  power  of  expelling 
demons,  securing  the  remission  of  venial  sins,  of  healing 
diseases  of  the  body  and  promoting  the  health  of  the  soul. 
Holy  water  has  also  achieved  stupendous  wonders :  broken 
limbs  have  been  restored  by  its  efficacy,  and  insanity  itself 
has  yielded  to  its  power.'^  Whole  flocks  and  herds  are  not 
^  The  story  of  the  exorcising  of  Martha  Brosser,  a.d.  1599,  may  be 
found  in  the  history  of  Thuanus,  lib.  cxiii.  The  reader  will  find  it  an 
admirable  specimen  of  the  bkick  art. 

2  Urban  V.  sent  three  Agnos  Dei  to  the  Greek  Emperor,  with  these  verses : 

"Balsam,  pure  wax  and  chrism-liquor  clear 
Make  up  this  precious  lamb  I  send  thee  here. 
All  lightning  it  dispels  and  each  ill  sprite  : 
Remedies  sin  and  makes  the  heart  contrite; 
Even  as  the  blood  that  Christ  for  us  did  shed, 
It  helps  the  childbed's  pains,  and  gives  good  speed 
Unto  the  birth.     Groat  gifts  it  still  doth  win 
To  all  that  wear  it  and  that  worthy  bin. 
It  quells  the  rage  of  fire,  and  cleanly  bore. 
It  brings  from  shipwreck  safely  to  the  shore." 
The  forms  for  blessing  holy  water  and  the  other  implements  of  Papal 
magic  and  blasphemy  may  found  in  the  Book  of  Holy  Ceremonies.    I  had 
marked  out  some  of  the  prayers  to  be  copied,  but  I  have  already  furnished 
sufficient  materials  to  establisli  the  position  of  the  text. 

3  See  the  dialogues  of  St.  Gregory  and  Bede.  St.  Fortunatus  restored 
a  broken  thigh  with  holy  water ;  St.  Malachias  brought  a  madman  to  liis 
senses  by  the  same  prescription  ;  and  St.  Ililarion  healed  divers  of  the  sick 
with  holy  bread  and  oil.  These  are  only  specimens,  and  very  moderate 
ones,  of  the  legends  of  the  saints.  The  magic  of  Komc  turns  the  course 
of  nature  into  a  theatre  of  woiulcrs. 


Lett.  Vir.]  INFALLIBILITY    AND   SUPERSTITION.  535 

unfrequently  brought  to  the  priest  to  receive  his  blessing, 
and  we  have  approved  formularies  for  charming  the  cattle 
and  putting  a  spell  upon  the  possessions  of  the  faithful. 
Rome  is  indeed  a  powerful  enchantress^  Even  the  sacra- 
ments become  Circean  mixtures  in  her  hands,  dispensing 
mysterious  effects  to  all  who  receive  them  from  her  priestly 
magicians;  being  indeed  a  substitute  for  virtue,  a  complete 
exemption  from  the  necessity  of  grace.^ 

The  type  of  character  and  religious  opinion,  the  pervad- 
ing tone  of  sentiment  and  feeling,  which  any  system  pro- 
duces on  the  mass  of  its  votaries,  is  a  just  criterion  of  its 
real  tendencies.  The  influence  of  a  sect  is  not  to  be  exclu- 
sively determined  from  abstract  statements  or  controversial 
expositions,  but  from  the  fruits  which  it  naturally  brings 
forth  in  the  hearts  and  lives  of  those  who  belong  to  it. 
The  application  of  this  test  is  particularly  just  in  the  case 
of  Romanism,  since  the  priests  possess  unlimited  control 
over  the  minds  and  consciences  of  their  subjects.  They  are 
consequently  responsible  for  the  moral  condition,  the  relig- 
ious observances,  the  customs  and  opinions  of  Papal  com- 
munities. Hence,  the  system  of  Rome  in  its  practical  ope- 
rations can  be  better  ascertained  from  the  spiritual  state  of 
the  mass  of  the  people  than  from  the  briefs  of  Popes,  the 
canons  of  Councils  and  the  decisions  of  doctors.  It  is  seen 
among  the  people  embodied  in  the  life ;  its  legitimate  tend- 
encies are  reduced  to  the  test  of  actual  experience ;  we  know 
what  it  is  by  beholding  what  it  does.  Tried  by  this  stand- 
ard, it  seems  to  me  that  Romanism  cannot  be  regarded  in 
any  other  light  than  as  a  debasing  system  of  idolatrous 
superstition,  in  which  the  hopes  of  mankind  are  made  to 
depend  upon  the  charms  of  magic  and  the  effects  of  sorcery, 

1  "Upon  the  Sacraments  themselves,"  says  Bishop  Taylor,  "they  are 
tauj;;ht  to  rely  with  so  little  of  moral  and  virtuous  dispositions  that  the 
efficacy  of  one  is  made  to  lessen  the  necessity  of  the  other ;  and  the 
sacraments  are  taught  to  be  so  efTectual  by  an  inherent  virtue  that  they 
are  not  so  much  made  the  instruments  of  virtue  as  the  suppletory ;  not 
so  much  to  increase  as  to  make  amends  for  the  want  of  grace." — Works, 
vol.  X.,  p.  241. 


536     ARGUMENTS   FOR  APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.   [Lett.  VII. 

instead  of  the  glorious  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ. 
It  is  indeed  a  kingdom  of  darkness,  in  which  the  Prince  of 
the  power  of  the  air  sits  enthroned  in  terror,  envelops  the 
people  in  the  blackness  of  spiritual  night,  and  shrouds  their 
minds  in  the  grim  repose  of  death.  Where  the  raven  wings 
of  superstition  and  idolatry  overshadow  a  land  the  spirit  of 
enterprise  is  uniformly  broken,  the  energies  of  the  soul  are 
stifled  and  suppressed,  and  the  noblest  affections  of  the  heart 
are  chilled,  blighted  and  perverted  by  the  malignant  influ- 
ence of  error.  The  picture  which  Taylor  draws  of  the 
Papal  population  of  Ireland,'  which  Townsend  gives  of  the 

^  I  give  a  single  specimen  of  the  abject  superstition  of  the  Papists,  upon 
the  authority  of  Jeremy  Taylor :  "  But  we  have  observed  amongst  the 
generality  of  the  Irish  such  a  declension  of  Christianity,  so  great  cre- 
dulity to  believe  every  superstitious  story,  such  confidence  in  vanity,  such 
groundless  pertinacity,  such  vicious  lives,  so  little  sense  of  true  religion 
and  the  fear  of  God,  so  much  care  to  obey  the  priests  and  so  little  to  obey 
God,  such  intolerable  ignorance,  such  fond  oaths  and  maimers  of  swear- 
ing, thinking  themselves  more  obliged  by  swearing  on  the  Mass-book  than 
the  four  Gospels,  and  St.  Patrick's  Mass-book  more  than  any  new  one; 
swearing  by  their  father's  soul,  by  their  gossip's  hand,  by  other  things 
which  are  the  product  of  those  many  tales  that  are  told  them ;  their  not 
knowing  upon  what  account  they  refuse  to  come  to  church,  but  now  they 
are  old,  and  never  did  or  their  countrymen  do  not,  or  their  fathers  or 
grandfathers  never  did,  or  that  their  ancestors  were  priests  and  they  will 
not  alter  from  their  religion  ;  and  after  all  they  can  give  no  account  of  their 
religion,  what  it  is,  only  they  believe  as  their  priests  bid  them,  and  go  to 
mass,  which  they  miderstand  not,  and  reckon  their  beads  to  tell  the  num- 
ber and  the  tale  of  their  prayers,  and  abstain  from  eggs  and  flesh  in  Lent, 
and  visit  St.  Patrick's  Well,  and  leave  pins  and  ribbons,  yarn  or  thread  hi 
their  holy  wells,  and  pray  to  God,  St.  Mary,  St.  Patrick,  St.  Columbanus 
and  St.  Bridget,  and  desire  to  be  buried  with  St.  Francis'  cord  about  them, 
and  to  fast  on  Saturdays  in  honour  of  Our  Lady.  ...  I  shall  give  one  parti- 
cular instance  of  their  miserable  superstition  and  blindness.  I  was  lately, 
within  a  few  months,  very  much  troubled  with  petitions  and  earnest 
requests  for  the  restoring  a  bell  which  a  person  of  quality  liad  in  his 
hands  at  the  time  of  and  ever  since  the  late  rebellion.  I  could  not  gues.s 
at  the  reasons  of  their  so  great  and  violent  importunity,  but  told  the  peti- 
tioners if  they  could  prove  that  bell  to  be  theirs,  the  gentleman  was  will- 
ing to  pay  the  full  value  of  it,  though  lie  had  no  obligation  to  do  so,  that 
I  know  of,  but  charity.  But  this  was  so  far  from  satisfying  them  that  still 
the  importunity  increased,  whicli  made  me  diligently  to  inquire  into  the 
secret  of  it.     The  first  cause  I  found  was  that  a  dying  person  in  the  par- 


Lett.  VII.]         INFALLIBILITY   AND  SUPERSTITION.  537 

bigoted  peasantry  of  Spain,  the  condition  of  the  Church  in 
Sile.sia,  Italy,  Portugal  and  South  America,  disclose  the 
features  of  the  Papacy  in  their  true  light,  and  demonstrate 
beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt  that  it  is  a  system  of  the 
same  sort,  founded  on  the  same  i)rinciples,  and  aiming  at  the 
same  results,  with  the  monstrous  mythology  of  the  Hindoos. 
They  are  ennobled  by  none  of  those  sublime  and  elevated 
views  of  the  moral  government  of  God,  and  the  magnificent 
economy  of  His  grace  through  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which 
alone  can  impart  tranquillity  to  the  conscience,  stability  to 
the  character  and  consistency  to  the  life.  They  recognize 
God  in  none  of  the  operations  of  His  hands :  priests,  saints, 
images  and  relics,  beads,  bells,  oil  and  water  so  completely 
engross  their  attention  and  contract  their  conceptions  that 
they  can  rise  to  nothing  higher  in  the  scale  of  excellence 
than  the  empty  pageantry  of  ceremonial  pomp,  or  dream 
of  nothing  better  in  the  way  of  felicity  than  the  solemn 
farce  of  sacerdotal  benediction.  Their  hopes  are  vanity 
and  their  food  is  dust.  To  the  true  Christian  they  present 
a  scene  as  melancholy  and  moving  as  that  which  stirred  the 
spirit  of  the  Apostle  when  he  beheld  the  citizens  of  Athens 
wholly  given  to  idolatry ;  in  the  possession  of  the  strong 
man  armed,  it  requires  something  mightier  than  argument, 

ish  desired  to  have  it  rung  before  him  to  church,  and  pretended  he  could 
not  die  in  peace  if  it  were  denied  liim,  and  that  the  keeping  of  that  bell 
did  anciently  belong  to  that  family  from  father  to  son ;  but  because  this 
seemed  nothing  but  a  fond  and  unreasonable  superstition,  I  inquired  farther, 
and  found  at  last  that  they  believed  this  bell  came  from  heaven,  and  that  it 
used  to  be  carried  from  place  to  place,  and  to  end  controversies  by  oatli, 
which  the  worst  men  durst  not  violate  if  they  swore  ujjou  that  Ijell,  and 
the  best  men  amongst  them  durst  not  but  believe  them ;  that  if  this  bell 
was  rung  before  the  corpse  to  the  grave,  it  would  help  him  out  of  purga- 
tory, and  that,  therefore,  when  any  one  died,  the  friends  of  the  deceased 
did,  whilst  the  bell  was  in  their  possession,  hire  it  for  the  behoof  of  their 
dead,  and  that  by  this  means  that  family  was  in  part  maintained.  I  was 
troubled  to  see  under  wliat  spirit  of  delusion  these  poor  souls  do  lie,  how 
infinitely  their  credulity  is  abused,  how  certainly  tliey  believe  in  trifles 
and  perfectly  rely  on  vanity,  and  how  little  they  regard  tlie  truths  of  God, 
and  how  not  at  all  they  drink  of  tlie  waters  of  salvation." — Works,  vol.  x.: 
Pref.  to  Dissuasive  from  Popery,  p.  cxxi.,  seq. 


538    ARGUMENTS   FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.    [Lett.  VII. 

stronger  than  the  light  of  truth,  to  break  the  spell  of  spirit- 
ual enchantment  which  leads  them  on  to  death,  to  dissipate 
the  deep  delusions  of  priestly  imposture  which  are  sealing 
their  souls  for  hell.  The  mind  recoils  at  the  thought  of  the 
terrible  account  which  their  blind  guides,  who  have  acted 
the  part  of  mad  diviners,  must  render  in  the  day  of  final 
retribution,  when  the  blood  of  countless  souls  shall  be 
required  at  their  hands.  The  priests  of  other  supersti- 
tions may  plead  to  some  extent  irremediable  ignorance  for 
their  errors,  idolatries  and  crimes — the  Avay  of  righteous- 
ness had  never  been  revealed  to  them — but  the  priests  of 
Rome  have  no  cloak  for  their  wickedness ;  they  have  delib- 
erately extinguished  the  light  of  revelation,  have  sinned 
wilfully  after  they  had  received  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth,  have  insulted  the  Saviour  and  despised  the  Spirit — 
betrayed  the  one,  like  Judas,  with  a  kiss,  and  reduced  the 
other  to  a  mere  magician,  and  must  consequently  expect 
the  severity  of  judgment  at  the  hands  of  the  Almighty 
Disposer  of  events. 

The  Pagan  tendencies  of  Rome  appear,  in  the  last  place, 
from  her  substitution  of  a  vain  and  imposing  ritual,  copied 
from  the  models  of  her  heathen  ancestors,  for  the  pure  and 
spiritual  worship  of  the  Gospel.  The  Saviour  has  told  us 
that  God  requires  the  homage  of  the  heart,  and  that  all  our 
services,  in  order  to  be  accepted  by  Him  with  whom  we 
have  to  do,  must  be  rendered  in  the  name  of  the  Son,  by 
the  grace  of  the  Spirit,  and  according  to  the  requirements 
of  the  written  Word.  To  worship  God  in  spirit  and  truth 
is  to  bring  to  the  employment  that  knowledge  of  His  name, 
that  profound  veneration  for  His  character,  that  cordial 
sympathy  with  the  moral  perfections  of  His  nature,  which 
presuppose  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  economy  of 
His  grace  through  Jesus  Christ,  the  renovation  of  the  heart 
by  the  effectual  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  a  con- 
stant spirit  of  compliance  with  all  His  statutes  and  ordi- 
nances. It  is  indeed  the  sjiirit  of  love  and  of  obedience; 
and  both  necessarily  suppose  that  knowledge  which  is  idcn- 


Lett.  VII.]  INFALLIBILITY    AND   SUPERSTITION.  539 

tificd  with  faith  and  proceeds  from  the  disclosures  of  the 
written  Word.  Whatever  is  not  required  is  not  obedience, 
and  therefore  cannot  be  worship,  which  must  always  be 
measured  by  the  will  of  God.  Upon  comparing  the  worship 
which  Rome  prescribes  with  that  which  the  Gospel  requires, 
they  will  be  found  to  diifer  in  every  essential  element  of 
acceptable  homage.  The  Gospel  confines  our  worship  ex- 
clusively to  God;  Rome  scatters  it  upon  a  thousand  objects 
whom  she  has  exalted  to  the  rank  of  divinities.  The  Gos- 
pel directs  that  all  our  services  should  be  offered  exclusively 
in  the  name  of  Christ;  Rome  has  as  many  intercessors  as 
gods,  and  as  many  mediators  as  priests.  The  Gospel  re- 
quires the  affections  of  the  heart,  j^urified  and  prompted  by 
the  Holy  Ghost;  Rome  prescribes  beads  and  genuflexions, 
scourgings  and  pilgrimages,  fasts  and  penances,  and  partic- 
vdarly  the  magic  of  what  she  calls  sacraments,  which  are 
an  excellent  substitute  for  grace.  The  end  which  the  Gos- 
pel proposes  is  to  restore  the  sinner  to  communion  with 
God — to  make  him,  indeed,  a  spiritual  man,  and  hence  the 
appeals  which  it  makes  to  the  assistance  of  the  senses  are 
few  and  simple;  the  end  contemplated  by  Rome  is  to  awaken 
emotions  of  mysterious  awe,  which  shall  ultimately  redound 
to  the  advantage  of  the  priesthood,  and  hence  her  services 
are  exclusively  directed  to  the  eye,  the  ear  and  the  fancy. 
If  she  succeeds  in  reaching  the  imagination,  and  produces  a 
due  veneration  for  the  gorgeous  solemnities  which  pass  be- 
fore us,  she  has  compassed  her  design,  and  excited  the  only 
species  of  religious  emotion  with  which  she  is  acquainted. 
The  difference  between  spiritual  affections  and  sentimental 
impressions,  which  is  indeed  the  difference  between  faith 
and  sense,  is  utterly  unknown  to  the  blinded  priesthood  of 
the  Papal  apostasy.  Imi)osing  festivals  and  magnificent 
processions,  symbols  and  ceremonies,  libations  and  sacrifices, 
— these  proclaim  the  poverty  of  her  spirit,  the  vanity  of 
her  mind:  they  are  sad  memorials  of  "religion  lying  in 
state,  surrounded  with  the  silent  pomp  of  death." 


540   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  VIII. 

LETTER    VIII. 

INFALLIBILITY    AND    CIVIL    GOVERNMENT. 

The  extravagant  pretensions  of  the  Romish  sect  to  the 
Divine  prerogative  of  infallibility  are  not  only  fatal  to  the 
interests  of  truth,  morality  and  religion  but  equally  de- 
structive of  the  rights  of  magistrates  and  the  ends  for 
which  governments  were  instituted.  To  define  the  connec- 
tion which  ought  to  subsist  between  Church  and  State,  to 
prescribe  their  mutual  relations  and  subserviencies,  and  mark 
their  points  of  separation  and  contact,  are  problems  of  polity 
which  have  tasked  the  resources  of  the  mightiest  minds, 
and  which  their  highest  powers  have  been  inadequate  to 
solve.  The  difficulties,  hoAvever,  have  not  arisen  from  the 
inherent  nature  of  the  subject,  but  from  the  force  of  ancient 
institutions  and  early  prejudices  to  blind  and  enslave  the 
understanding.  The  masterly  abilities  of  Warburton  were 
certainly  competent  to  the  discussion  of  this  or  any  other 
subject ;  the  zeal  of  eloquence  and  power  of  argument  with 
which  he  has  presented  the  importance  of  religion  as  con- 
ducing to  the  success  and  stability  of  the  State  are,  perhaps, 
irresistible;  yet  the  attentive  reader  will  perceive  that  none 
of  his  reasonings,  however  unanswerably  they  prove  the 
value  of  the  Church  and  the  need  of  its  aid,  establish  the 
necessity  of  a  federal  alliance.  The  gratuitous  assumption 
which  vitiates  the  logic  of  this  celebrated  book  is  the  ancient 
opinion,  that  Christianity  could  not  contribute  its  influence 
to  the  peace  and  order  of  society  without  being  supported 
by  the  State.  "  The  props  and  buttresses  of  secular  author- 
ity" were  conceived  to  be  essential  not  only  to  the  pros- 
perity, but  also  to  the  being  of  the  Church;  as  if,  in  the 
language  of  Milton,  "  the  Church  were  a  vine  in  this  re- 
spect, that  she  cannot  subsist  without  clasping  about  the 
elm  of  worldly  strength  and  felicity."  It  is  found  from 
experience,  however,  and  might  be  deduced  from  the  natm-e 


Lett.  VIII.]  INFALLIBILITY   AND   CIVIL   GOVERNMENT.  541 

of  its  principles,  that  Christianity  is  then  most  powerful, 
and  sustains  the  government  by  its  strongest  sanctions,  when 
it  stands  alone,  commending  itself  to  every  man's  conscience 
•  by  truth  and  purity.  Alliance  with  the  State  corrupts  and\ 
M-eakcns  spiritual  authority.  It  debases  the  Church  into  a 
secular  institution;  makes  emolument  and  splendour  more 
imi)ortant  objects  than  righteousness  and  truth;  defeats  the 
ends  for  which  it  has  been  instituted;  and,  instead  of  add- 
ing weight  to  the  laws  of  man,  detracts  from  the  authority 
of  the  laws  of  God.  Church  and  State,  distinct  as  they  are^  / 
in  their  offices  and  ends,  clothed  with  powers  of  a  different 
species  and  supported  by  sanctions  essentially  unlike,  fulfil 
their  respective  courses  with  less  confusion  and  disturbance 
when  each  is  restrained  within  its  own  appropriate  jurisdic- 
tion. The  harmony  of  the  spheres  is  preserved  by  the 
regularity  and  order  with  which  they  revolve  in  their  ap- 
pointed orbits.  The  protection  of  life,  property  and  person 
is  the  leading  end  for  which  governments  were  instituted; 
the  restoration  of  man  to  the  image  of  God,  through  faith 
in  the  scheme  of  supernatural  revelation,  is  the  grand  pur- 
pose for  which  the  Church  was  established.  The  State 
views  man  as  a  member  of  society,  and  deals  exclusively 
with  external  acts  ;  the  Church  regards  him  as  the  creature 
of  God,  and  demands  integrity  in  the  inward  parts.  The 
State  secures  the  interests  of  time;  the  Church  provides  for 
a  blessed  immortality.  The  State  is  concerned  about  the 
bodies  of  men;  the  Church  is  solicitous  for  the  deathless 
soul.  Racks,  gibbets,  dungeons  and  tortures  are  the  props 
and  muniments  of  secular  authority  ;  truth  and  love,  "  the 
sword  of  the  Spirit"  and  "  the  cords  of  a  man,"  are  the 
mighty  weapons  of  the  spiritual  host.  To  maintain  with  a 
recent  writer,  whose  work  is  far  inferior  in  compactness  and 
precision  to  the  treatise  of  Warburton,  that  one  of  the  dis- 
tinctive ends  of  government  is  to  propagate  the  truths  of 
religion,  is  to  destroy  the  Church  as  a  separate  institution 
and  make  it  an  appendage  to  the  State.  The  administra- 
tion of  religion,  under  this  view,  becomes  as  completely  a 


542   ARGUMEXTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.    [Lett.  VIII. 

part  of  the  government  as  courts  of  justice  or  halls  of  legis- 
lation. 

The  doctrine  of  Rome,  on  the  mutual  relations  of  the 
temporal  and  spiritual  power,  leads  to  consequences  as  fatal" 
to  the  liberty  of  States  as  those  of  Warburton  or  Gladstone 
to  the  independence,  purity  and  efficiency  of  the  Church. 
Three  different  views  have  been  taken  of  this  subject  by 
distinguished  writers  in  the  Papal  communion.  The  Canon- 
ists '  and  Jesuits,^  for  the  most  part,  carrying  out  the  idea 

1  For  an  amusing  effort  to  evade  the  claims  of  the  Canon  law,  vide 
Gibert,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  oil,  512. 

2  The  doctrine  seems  to  be  embodied  in  the  Jesuit's  oath,  which  the 
learned  Archbishop  Usher  drew  from  undoubted  records  in  Paris  and 
published  to  the  world.  In  that  oath  it  is  asserted  that  the  Pope,  by  vir- 
tue of  the  keys  given  to  his  holiness  by  Jesus  Christ,  hath  power  to  depose 
heretical  kings,  princes,  states,  commonwealths  and  governments,  all  beinff 
illegal  without  his  sacred  confirmation ;  and  consequently  all  allegiance 
is  renounced  to  any  such  rulers.     The  entire  document  is  as  follows: 

"I,  A.  B.,  now  in  the  presence  of  Almighty  God,  the  blessed  Virgin 
Mary,  the  blessed  Michael  the  Archangel,  the  blessed  St.  John  Baptist, 
the  holy  Apostles  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  and  the  saints  and  sacred  host  of 
heaven,  and  to  you,  my  ghostly  father,  do  declare  from  my  heart,  without 
mental  reservation,  that  his  holiness  Pope  Urban  is  Christ's  vicar-general, 
and  is  the  true  and  only  head  of  the  Catholic  or  universal  Church  through- 
out the  earth :  and  that,  by  the  virtue  of  the  keys  of  binding  and  loosing 
given  to  his  Holiness  by  my  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  he  hath  power  to  depose 
heretical  kings,  princes,  states,  commonwealths  and  governments,  all  being 
illegal  without  his  sacred  confirmation,  and  that  they  may  be  safely  de- 
stroyed ;  therefore,  to  the  utmost  of  my  power,  I  shall  and  will  defend  this 
doctrine  and  his  Holiness's  rights  and  customs  against  all  usurpers  of  the 
heretical  authority  whatsoever,  especially  against  the  now  pretended 
authority  and  Church  of  England,  and  all  adherents,  in  regard  that  they 
and  she  be  usurpal  and  heretical,  opposing  the  sacred  Mother  Church  of 
Eome.  I  do  renounce  and  disown  any  allegiance  as  due  to  any  heretical 
king,  prince  or  state  named  Protestant,  or  obedience  to  any  of  their  in- 
ferior magistrates  or  officers.  I  do  further  declare,  that  the  doctrines  of 
the  Church  of  England,  of  the  Calvinists,  Huguenots,  and  of  others  of  the 
name  of  Protestants,  are  damnable,  and  they  themselves  are  damned,  and 
to  be  damned,  that  will  not  forsake  the  same.  I  do  further  declare,  that 
I  will  help,  assist  and  advise  all  or  any  of  his  holiness's  agents,  in  any 
place  wherever  I  shall  be,  in  England,  Scotland  and  in  Ireland,  or  in  any 
other  territory  or  kingdom  I  shall  come  to,  and  do  my  utmost  to  extirpate 
the  heretical  Protestants'  doctrine,  and  to  destroy  all  their  pretended 
powers,  legal  or  otherwise.    I  do  further  promise  and  declare,  that,  not- 


Lett.  VIII.]  INFALLIBILITY    AND    CIVIL    GOVERNMENT.  543 

that  the  Pope  is  the  vicai'  of  God  upon  earth,  ch)the  him 
•with  all  the  plenitude  of  power,  in  relation  to  sublunary 
things,  which  belongs  to  Deity  Himself.  It  is  his  prerog- 
ative to  fix  the  boundaries  of  nations,  to  appoint  the  hab- 
itations of  the  people,  and  to  set  over  them  the  basest  of 
men.  From  him  kings  derive  their  authority  to  reign 
and  princes  to  decree  justice;  upon  him  the  rulers  and 
judges  of  the  earth  are  dependent  alike  for  the  sceptre  and 
the  sword;  it  is  his,  like  Jupiter  in  Homer,  to  "shake  his 
ambrosial  curls  and  give  the  nod — the  stamp  of  fate,  the 
sanction  of  a  god."  In  the  sentence  against  Frederick  II., 
passed  in  the  Council  of  Lyons,  which,  according  to  Bellar- 
mine,  represented  without  doubt  the  universal  Church,  this 
extravagant  pretension  to  absolute  power  is  assumed.^     At 

withstanding,  I  am  dispensed  to  assume  any  religion  heretical  for  the  pro- 
pagating of  the  Mother  Church's  interest,  to  keep  secret  and  private  all 
her  agents'  counsels  from  time  to  time,  as  they  intrust  me,  and  not  to 
divulge,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  word,  writing  or  circumstance  whatso- 
ever; but  to  execute  all  that  shall  be  proposed,  given  in  charge  or  dis- 
covered unto  me  by  you,  my  ghostly  father,  or  by  any  of  this  sacred  con- 
vent. All  which,  I,  A.  B.,  do  swear,  by  the  blessed  Trinity,  and  blessed 
sacrament  which  I  now  am  to  receive,  to  perform  and  on  my  part  to  keep 
inviolably ;  and  do  call  all  tlie  heavenly  and  glorious  host  of  heaven  to 
witness  these  my  real  intentions  to  keep  this  my  oath.  In  testimony 
hereof,  I  take  this  most  holy  and  blessed  sacrament  of  the  eucharist;  and 
witness  the  same  further  with  my  hand  and  seal  in  the  face  of  this  holy 

convent,  this day  of ,  An.  Dom.,"  &c. 

*  "  Nos  itaque  super  prsemissis  et  compluribus  aliis  ejus  nefandis  exces- 
sibus,  cum  fratribus  nostris,  et  sacro  concilio  deliberatione  prsehabita  dili- 
genti,  cum  Jesu  Christi  vices  licet  immeriti  teneamus  in  terris,  nobisque 
in  beatl  Petri  Apostoli  persona  sit  dictum :  '  Quodcumque  ligaveris  super 
terrain,  &c.'  Memoratum  principem,  qui  se  imperio  et  regnis  omnique 
honore  ac  dignitate  reddidit  tarn  indignum,qnique  propter  suas  iniquitates 
a  Deo  ne  regnet  vel  imperet  est  abjectus,  suis  ligatum  peccatis,  et  abjec- 
tum,  omnique  honore  et  dignitate  privatum  a  Domino  ostendimus,  denun- 
ci.amus,  ac  nihilo  minus  sententiando  privamus ;  omnes,  qui  ei  juramento 
fidelitatis  tenentur  adstricti,  a  juramento  hujusraodi  perpetuo  absolventes; 
autoritate  apostolica  firmiter  inhibendo,  ne  quisquam  de  Cfetero  sibi  tara- 
quam  imperatori  vel  regi  pareat  vel  intendat,  et  decernendo  quoslibof,  qui 
deinceps  ei  velut  imperatori  ant  regi  consilium  vel  auxilium  pra?stiterint 
sen  favorcm,  ipso  facto  excommunicationis  vinculo  subjacere.  Illi  auteni 
ad  quos  in  eodem  imperio  imperatoris  spectat  electio,  eligant  libera  sue- 


544   ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.   [Lett.  VIII. 

the  close  of  the  second  session  of  the  fifth  Council  of  La- 
teran,  an  oration  was  delivered  by  Cajetan,  which  abounds  in 
fulsome  adulation  of  the  Pope,  representing  him  as  the  vicar 
of  the  Omnipotent  God,  invested  alike  with  temporal  })ower 
and  ecclesiastical  authority,  and  exhorting  him,  in  blasphe- 
mous application  of  the  language  of  the  Psalmist,  to  "  gird 
his  sword  upon  his  thigh  and  proceed  to  reign  over  all  the 
powers  of  the  earth."  ' 

The  Pontiffs,  in  their  damnatory  sentences,  are  particu- 
larly fond  of  quoting,  in  accommodation  to  themselves,  the 
words  of  Jeremiah  :  "  I  have  set  thee  over  the  nations  and 
over  the  kingdoms,"  as  well  as  the  Avords  of  Christ  to  Peter, 
in  the  largest  and  most  absolute  sense.  To  be  the  vicar 
of  the  Omnipotent  God  is  to  be  Lord  of  lords  and  King 
of  kings.  In  the  famous  controversy  betwixt  Boniface 
yill.  and  Philip  the  Fair,  the  insolent  pontiff  boldly  as- 
serted that  "  The  king  of  France,  and  all  other  kings  and 
princes  whatsoever,  were  obliged,  by  a  Divine  command,  to 
submit  to  the  authority  of  the  Popes,  as  well  in  all  political 
and  civil  matters  as  in  those  of  a  religious  nature."  These 
doctrines  are  fully  brought  out  in  the  memorable  Bull, 
"  Unam  Sanctam"  in  which  it  is  maintained  that  "  Jesus 
had  granted  a  twofold  power  to  the  Church — or,  in  other 
w^ords,  the  spiritual  and  temporal  sword — and  subjected  the 
whole  human  race  to  the  authority  of  the  Koman  Pontiff," 

cessorem.  De  prsefato  vero  Sicilire  regno  providere  curabimus,  cum  eornn- 
dura  fratrura  nostrorum  consilio,  sicut  viderimus  expedite." — Labb.,  Concil., 
Tom.  xi.,  p.  645. 

1  "  Assequetur  autem  hoc,  te  volente,  teque  imperante,  si  lii  ipse,  pater 
sancte,  omnipotentis  Dei  cnjus  vices  in  terris  non  solum  honore  dignitatis, 
sed  etiam  studio  voluntatis  gerere  debes :  si  ipsius  Dei  potentiam,  perfec- 
tionem,  sapientiaraque  imitaberis.  Atqui  ut  in  primis  potentiam  imiterls, 
accingere,  pater  sancte,  gladio  tuo,  too  inquam  accingere:  binos  enim 
babes,  unum  tibi  reliquis  que  hujus  mundi  principibus  commuuem :  alte- 
rum  tibi  proprium,  atque  ita  tuum,  ut  ilium  alius  nemo  nisi  a  te  habere 
possit.  Hoc  itaque  gladio  tuo,  qui  ecclesiasticre  potestatis  est,  accingere, 
potentissime,  et  accingere  super  femur  tuum,  id  est,  super  universas  huniani 
generis  potestates." — Labb.,  Concil.,  Tom.  xiv.,  p.  75. 


Lett.  VIII.]  IXFALLIBILITY   AND   CIVIL   GOVERNMENT.  545 

whom  they  were  bound  to  obey  on  pain  of  eternal  damna- 
tion.' 

There  is  another  view,  which  has  been  approved  by  the 
Church  in  every  possible  way,  by  the  voice  of  her  doctors, 
the  bulls  of  Popes  and  the  decriees  of  Councils,  which 
reaches  the  same  practical  results  on  grounds  less  flagrantly 
M'icked  or  detestably  blasphemous.  It  is  the  opinion  main- 
tained by  Baronius,  Bellarmine,  Binius,  Carranza,  Perron, 
Turrecrema  and  Pighius,  and  abounding  ad  nauseam  in  the 
documents  of  Gregory  VII.  Tlie  Pope,  according  to  these 
writers,  is  not  absolute  lord  of  the  infidel  world.  His  spe- 
cial jurisdiction  is  the  guardianship  and  care  of  the  Church. 
In  protecting  his  flock,  however,  from  the  encroachments 
of  error  and  the  dangers  of  schism,  he  is  clothed  with 
plenary  power  to  disturb  the  government  of  nations  and 
destroy  the  institutions  of  states.  He  has  a  broad  com- 
mission from  heaven  to  provide  for  the  welfare  and  pros- 
perity of  the  Church,  and  whatever  powers  may  be  found 
subservient  to  the  fulfilment  of  this  delegated  trust  are  in- 
directly vested  in  his  hands.  Like  a  Roman  dictator,  his 
business  is  to  see  that  the  republic  of  the  faithful  receives 
no  damage ;  and  if  kings  and  rulers  should  be  regarded  as 
dangerous  to  the  interests  of  the  Church,  kings  and  rulers 
may  be  laid  aside  at  his  sovereign  pleasure.  If  there  be  a 
single  principle  which  can  be  called  the  doctrine  of  the 
Romish  sect,  to  which  its  infallibility  is  solemnly  pledged, 
and  which  has  been  exemplified  in  repeated  acts,  this  is  the 
principle.  Thomas  Aquinas  distinctly  teaches  that  the 
Church  can  absolve  believing  subjects  from  the  power  and 
dominion  of  infidel  kings,  ^gidius  maintains  that  the 
power  of  the  Church,  which  is  fully  embodied  in  the  sov- 
ereign Pontiff,  extends  not  only  to  spiritual  interests  but 
also  to  temporal  affairs.     Thomas  Cajetan  defines  the  power 

^  Gibert,  Corpus  .luris  Canonici,  vol.  ii.,  p.  513,  sums  up  the  famous  bull 
of  Bonifoce  VIII.,  De  Majoritate  et  Obediemia,  in  these  pregnant  words : 
"  Deiinit  terrenam  potestatem  spirituali  ita  subdi,  ut  ilia  possit  ab  ista  in- 
3titui  et  destitui." 
Vol.  III.— 35 


546   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED,   [Lett.  VIII. 

of  the  Pope  almost  in  the  very  Avords  with  which  I  have 
described  this  general  opinion.^  Those  w^ho  wish  to  see  a 
sickening  list  of  the  Popish  writers  who  have  maintained 
this  notion  of  Pontifical  power  will  find  ample  satisfaction 
in  the  treatise  of  Bellarmine,  De  Potestate.  Private  wri- 
ters, however,  are  of  little  value,  compared  with  Councils 
and  Popes  themselves.  Gregory  VIL,  in  a  Roman  synod 
consisting  of  one  hundred  and  ten  bishops,  presumed,  for 
the  honour  and  protection  of  the  Church,  to  depose  Henry 
from  the  government  of  Germany  and  Italy,  and  transfer 
his  dominions  to  another  man.  This  sentence,  as  Bellar- 
mine  triumphantly  boasts,  was  afterward  confirmed  by 
Victor,  Urban,  Pascal,  Gelasius  and  Calixtus,  in  the  Synods 
of  Beneventine,  Placentia,  Rome,  Colonia  and  Rheims.^  I 
need  not  insist  upon  the  cases  of  Boniface  and  Philip  the 

^ "  Aquinas :  Potest  tamen  juste  per  sententiam,  vel  ordinationem  Ecclesise, 
auctoritatem  Dei  habentis,  tale  jus  dominii,  vel  prselationis  tolli;  quia  infi- 
deles  merito  suae  infidelitatis  merentur  potestatem  amittere  super  fideles, 
qui  transferuntur  in  filios  Dei ;  sed  hoc  quidem  Ecclesia  quandoque  facit, 
quandoque  non  facit." — Bellarm.,  Tract.  De  Potest.  Summ.  Pontif.,  p.  11. 

"iEgidius:  Sed,  inquit,  diceret  aliquis,  quod  Eeges  et  Principes  spir- 
itualiter  non  temporaliter  subsint  Ecclesise.  Sed  haec  dicentes  vim  argii- 
menti  non  capiunt:  nam  si  solum  spiritualiter  Reges  et  Principes  subessent 
Ecclesiae,  non  esset  gladius  sub  gladio :  non  essent  temporalia  sub  spiritual- 
ibus ;  non  esset  ordo  in  potestatibus ;  non  reducerentur  infima  in  suprema 
per  media.  Hsec  ille,  qui  toto  illo  tractatu  hoc  probat,  potestatem  Eccle- 
sise,  quffi  plenissima  est  in  Summo  Pontifice,  non  ad  sola  spiritualia,  sed 
etiam  ad  temporalia  se  extendere." — Ibid.,  p.  13. 

"  Cajetan :  Ideo  suae  potestati  duo  conveniunt :  primo,  quod  non  est 
directe  respectu  temporalium :  secundo,  quod  est  respectu  temporalium  in 
ordine  ad  spiritualia :  hoc  enim  habet  ex  eo,  quod  ad  supremum  finem 
omnia  ordinari  debent,  etiara  temporalia  ab  eo  procul  dubio,  cnjns  interest 
ad  ilium  finem  omnes  dirigere,  ut  est  Christi  Vicarius ;  primum  autem  ex 
natura  sujb  potestatis  consequitur." — Ibid.,  p.  15. 

'^  "Quapropter  confidens  de  judicioet  misericordia  Dei,  ejusque  piissimse 
matris  semper  virginis  Marise,  fultus  vestra  auctoritate,  sa?pe  nominatum 
Henricum,  quern  regem  dicunt,  omnesque  fautores  ejus  excomnuinicationi 
subjicio  et  anathematis  vinculis  alligo  ;  et  iterum  regnum  Teutonicorum  et 
Italite,  ex  parte  Omnipotentis  Dei  et  vestra,  interdicens  ci,  omncra  potes- 
tatem et  dignitatem  illi  regiam  tollo  et  ut  nullus  Christianoruin  ei  sicut 
regi  obediat  interdico,  omnesque  qui  ei  juraverunt  vel  jurabunt  de  regni 
dominatione  a  juramenti  promissione  absolvo." — Labbe,  vol.  x.,  p.  384. 


Lktt.  VIII.]  INFALLIBILITY   AND    CIVIL    GOVERNMENT.  547 

Fair,  Paul  III.  and  Henry  VIII.,  Pius  V.  and  the  Virgin 
Queen.  The  memorable  Bull,  in  Ccena  Domini,  issued 
by  Pius  V.  in  1567,  should  not  be  suffered  to  pass  with- 
out notice.  This  atrocious  document  prostrates  the  power 
of  kings  and  magistrates  at  the  foot  of  the  Pope,  sub- 
verts the  independence  of  States  and  nations,  and  makes 
the  sword  of  monarchs  and  rulers  the  pliant  tool  of  Pon- 
tifical despotism.^  Even  in  the  nineteenth  century  the 
successors  of  the  Fisherman  are  regaled  with  dreams  of  ter- 
restrial grandeur,  and  Pius  VIL,  in  the  plenitude  of  sjjir- 
itual  power,  poured  all  the  vials  of  his  wrath  upon  the 
head  of  Napoleon. 

Directly  or  indirectly,  more  or  less  distinctly,  eight  gen- 
eral councils  have  endorsed  the  doctrine  of  the  temporal 
jurisdiction  of  the  Pope — the  fourth  and  fifth  of  Lateran, 
those  of  Lyons,  Vienna,  Pisa,  Constance,  Basil  and  Trent. 
The  third  canon  of  the  fourth  Council  of  Lateran  is  in- 
tended to  provide  for  the  extirpation  of  heresy.  It  is  there 
decreed  that  if  any  temporal  lord,  after  the  admonition  of 
the  Church,  should  neglect  to  purge  his  realm  from  heretical 
pravity,  he  shall  be  excommunicated  by  his  metropolitan 
and  suffragans.  If  he  should  still  fail  to  give  satisfaction 
for  a  year,  his  contumacy  shall  be  announced  to  the  Sov- 
ereign Pontiff,  who  shall  proceed  to  absolve  his  subjects 
from  their  allegiance,  and  transfer  his  dominions  to  any 
usurper  willing  and  able  to  exterminate  heretics  and  re- 
store the  faith.^     "If  this,"  says  Bellarmine,  "is  not  the 

'  For  a  particular  account  of  this  famous  Bull  the  reader  is  particularly 
referred  to  Giannone  I.stor.  di  Napoli,  lib.  33,  cap.  iv.,  who  may  there  see 
its  audacious  interference  with  the  right  of  kings,  magistrates  and  rulers 
fully  exposed. 

^  "Si  vero  Dominus  Temporalis  requisitus  et  monitus  ab  Ecclesia,  ter- 
ram  suam  purgare  neglexerit  ab  hac  hseretica  fceditate,  per  melropolita- 
num  et  coeteros  comprovinciales  episcopos  excommunicationis  vinculo  in- 
nodetur.  Et,  si  satisfacere  conterapserit  infra  annum,  significetur  hoc 
summo  Pontifici,  ut  ex  tunc  ipse  vassalos  ab  ejus  fidelitate  denunciet  abso- 
lutos,  et  terram  exponat  Catholicis  occupandam,  qui  earn  exterminatis 
hsereticis  sine  ulla  contradictione  possideant  et  in  fidei  puritate  conser- 
vent." — Labbe,  vol.  xi.,  p.  148. 


548    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  VIII. 

voice  of  the  Catholic  Church,  where,  I  pray,  sliall  ^ye  find 
it?"  The  Council  of  Trent — that  I  may  not  occupy  the 
reader  with  a  tedious  display  of  the  insolence,  arrogance 
and  pride  of  Vienna,  Constance,  Pisa  and  Basil — the 
Council  of  Trent,  in  its  twenty-fifth  session,  passed  a  stat- 
ute in  relation  to  duelling;,  which  seems  to  assume  some- 
thing more  definite  and  tangible  than  spiritual  power.  The 
temporal  sovereign  who  permits  a  duel  to  take  place  in  his 
dominions  is  punished  not  only  with  excommunication,  but 
loith  the  loss  of  the  place  in  which  the  combat  occurred.  The 
duellists  and  their  seconds  are  condemned  in  the  same  sta- 
tute to  perpetual  infamy,  the  forfeiture  of  their  goods,  and 
deprived,  if  they  should  fall,  of  Christian  burial,  while 
those  who  were  merely  spectators  of  the  scene  are  sentenced 
to  eternal  malediction.^ 

The  inevitable  tendency  of  these  arbitrary  claims  to  sec- 
ular authority  is  to  merge  the  State  in  the  Church.  Kings 
and  emperors,  nations  and  communities,  become  merely  the 
instruments,  the  pliant  tools,  of  spiritual  dominion.  The 
kingdoms  of  the  earth  are  inferior  principalities  to  a  mag- 
nificent hierarchy,  the  first  places  of  which  are  reserved  for 
ecclesiastical  dignitaries.  The  higher  commands  the  lower ; 
and  so  the  Pope  can  set  his  feet  upon  the  neck  of  kings, 

1  "  Detestabilis  duellorum  usus  fabricante  diabolo  introductus,  ut  cruenta 
corporum  morte  aniinarum  etiam  perniciem  lucretur,  ex  Christiano  orbe 
penitus  exterminetur.  Iniperator,  reges,  duces,  principes,  marcliiones,  ' 
comites,  et  quocuraque  alio  nomine  domini  temporales,  qui  locum  ad 
monomachiam  in  terris  suis  inter  Cliristianos  concesserint,  eo  ipso  sint 
excommunicati  ac  jurisdictione  et  dominio  civitatis,  castri,  aut  loci,  in 
quo  vel  apud  queni  duellum  fieri  permiserint,  quod  ab  Ecclf  pia  obtinent, 
privati  intelligantur ;  et,  si  feudalia  sint,  difeotis  dominis  statim  acquiran- 
tur.  Qui  vero  pugnam  commiserint,  et  qui  eonim  patroni  vocantur,  ex- 
coramunicationis,  ac  omnium  bonorum  suorum  proscriptionis,  ac  perpetuse 
infamise  pcenam  incurrant;  et  ut  homicidre  jnxta  sacros  canones  pnniri 
debeant ;  et  si  in  ipso  conflictu  decesserint,  perpetuo  careant  ecclesiastica 
sepultura.  Illi  etiam,  qui,  consilium  in  causa  duelli  tam  in  jure  quam 
facto  dederint,  aut  alia  quaonnque  ratione  ad  id  quemquam  suaserint, 
necnon  spectatores,  excommunicationis  ac  perpetuae  maledictionis  vinculo 
teneantur;  non  obstante  quoounique  privilegio,  sen  prava  consuetudine 
etiam  immemorabili." — Ijihbe,  vol.  xiv.,  p.  916. 


Lett.  VIII.]  INFALLIBILITY   AND   CIVIL   GOVERNMENT,  549 

and  bind  their  nobles  in  fetters  of  iron.  The  Church  in- 
cludes the  State,  as  the  greater  inchides  the  less,  as  a  bishop 
includes  a  priest,  and  a  priest  includes  a  deacon.  The 
natural  consequence  is,  that  the  supreme  allegiance  of  the 
faithful  is  due  primarily  to  the  head  of  the  Church.  In  a 
conflict  of  power  between  princes  and  popes,  the  first  and 
highest  duty  of  all  the  vassals  of  Rome  is  to  maintain  her 
honour  and  support  her  claims.  Hence  the  Jesuit  in  his 
secret  oath  renounces  allegiance  to  all  earthly  powers  which 
have  not  been  confirmed  by  the  Holy  See,  and  devotes  his 
life  and  soul  to  the  undivided  service  of  the  Pope.  The 
Romish  Church,  too,  sets  her  face  like  a  flint  against  the 
subjection  of  her  spiritual  officers  to  the  legal  tribunals  of 
the  State,  and  has  positively  prohibited  the  intolerable  pre- 
sumption in  laymen,  though  kings  and  magistrates,  of  de- 
manding oaths  of  allegiance  from  the  lofty  members  of  her 
hierarchy.*  They  are  specially  and  emphatically  her  sub- 
jects, and  she  cannot  consent  that  their  fealty  should  be 
transferred  to  others.  Such  principles  are  fatal  to  the  in- 
dependence of  nations ;  and  just  in  proportion  as  the  doc- 
trines of  Rome  gain  the  ascendency  among  any  people,  just 
in  the  same  proportion  a  secret  enemy  is  cherished,  slowly 
but  surely  plotting  the  destruction  of  all  institutions,  how- 


'  "Nimis  de  jure  Divino  quidam  laici  u.surpare  conantur,  cum  viros 
ecclesiasticos,  nihil  temporale  detinentes  ab.eis,  ad  prsestandum  sibi  fideli- 
tatis  jurainenta  compellunt.  Quia  vero,  secundum  Apostolum,  servus  suo 
Domino  slat  aut  cadit,  sacri  auctoritate  concilii  prohibemus,  ne  tales  clerifi 
personis  ssecularibus  prsestare  cogantur  hujusmodi  juramentum." — IV. 
Lateran,  Can.  43:  Labbe,  vol.  xi.,  p.  191. 

That  ecclesiastical  officers  should  be  tried  only  in  ecclesiastical  coui-ts 
is  the  standing  doctrine  of  the  Canon  Law.  I  select  a  few  extracts  from 
Gibert's  Corpus  Juris  Canonici,  vol.  iii.,  p.  530 : 

"  Ut  nullus  judicum  neque  presbyterura,  neque  diaconum  vel  clericum 
uUum  aut  juniores  ecclesiae  sine  scientia  Pontificis  per  se  distringat  aut 
damnare  prtesuraat.  Clericus  de  orani  crimine  coram  judice  ecclesiastico 
debet  conveniri.  In  sacris  canonibus  generaliter  traditur  ut  de  omni  cri- 
mine clericus  debeat  coram  ecclesiastico  judico  conveniri. 

"A  saeculari  potestate  nee  ligari,  necsolvi  sacerdotem  posse,  manifestum 


550   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  VIII. 

ever  noble  or  sublime,  that  may  happen  to  contradict  the 
humour  of  a  bigoted  Italian  prince,  or  be  inconsistent  with 
decrees  passed  in  ages  of  darkness,  superstition  and  despot- 
ism. The  slaves  of  the  Papacy  are  taught  to  conceal  their 
weapons  until  they  are  ready  to  strike — ^to  disguise  their 
hemlock  and  nightshade  until  they  can  prepare,  the  deadly 
potation  with  the  certain  prospect  of  success.  But  when 
once  they  become  master  of  the  sceptre  and  the  sword,  they 
are  to  strike  for  Rome,  sell  the  liberties  of  the  country  to 
their  spiritual  lord,  raise  the  banner  of  inhuman  persecu- 
tion, and  purge  the  land  from  the  damning  stain  of  heretical 
pravity  with  the  blood  of  its  noblest  sons. 

La  Fayette  is  reported  to  have  said  that  if  ever  the  lib- 
erties of  this  country  should  be  destroyed,  it  would  be  by 
the  machinations  of  Romish  priests.  They  are  all,  in  fact, 
the  sworn  subjects  of  ii  foreign  jjotentate;  they  acknowledge 
an  earthly  king  who  has  repeatedly  denounced  every  dis- 
tinctive principle  for  which  our  fathers  bled.  The  priest- 
hood of  Rome  is  a  formidable  body.  The  moral  elements 
which  bind  the  human  family  together  in  the  ties  of  truth, 
fidelity  and  honour  are  feeble  to  them  as  Samson's  withes 
or  pointless  as  Priam's  darts.  To  the  outward  eye  all  may 
be  fair  and  seemly;  but  the  country  which  they  truly  love 
is  that  which  is  prepared  to  bow  the  knee  to  the  authority 
of  Rome  and  lick  the  Pontiff's  feet.  All  other  lands  are 
accursed  of  God,  and  their  vocation  is  to  reclaim  them  from 
their  ruin,  to  bring  them  into  the  holy  fold,  to  overturn  and 
overturn  and  overturn,  until  the  Man  of  Sin  is  prepared  to 
pronounce  his  magic  benediction. 

The  immortal  Milton,  "the  champion  and  martyr  of  Eng- 
lish liberty,"  as  well  as  the  "glory  of  English  literature," 
the  bold  defender  of  the  freedom  of  the  pres.s,  the  rights  of 
conscience  and  the  rights  of  man,  gave  it  as  his  delil)erate 
opinion  that  a  Christian  commonwealth,  in  consequence  of 
the  Pope's  pretensions  to  political  power  and  the  idolatrous 
nature  of  his  religious  rites,  ought  not  to  tolerate  his  dau- 


Lett.  VIII.]  INFALLIBILITY    AND   CIVIL   GOVERNMENT.  551 

gerou.s  sect.*  AVhen  destitute  of  power  or  forming  only  a 
fraction  of  the  eomjiiunity,  Papists  may  do  no  serious  harm, 
but  the  serpent  in  the  fable  had  lost  nothing  of  its  venom 
though  it  had  lost  its  muscular  activity.  They  whose  eyes, 
night  and  day,  arc  turned  to  the  Eternal  City,  whose  prayers 
are  hourly  ascending  for  its  glory  and  whose  zeal  is  devoted 
to  its  highest  prosperity;  they  who  are  persuaded  that  the 
ark  of  God  is  there,  and  that  the  hopes  of  man  are  centred 
in  the  favour  of  the  monarch  who  sits  upon  the  seven  hills ; 
they  who  are  bound,  under  an  awful  curse,  to  maintain  the 
princely  and  Divine  prerogatives  wdiich  superstition,  fanati- 
cism, pride  and  ambition  have  attributed  to  this  august  and 
venerable  mortal, — are  not  the  men  to  love  a  land  which  is 
darkened  by  his  frown  or  blasted  by  his  bitter  execrations. 
They  may  take  the  usual  oath  of  allegiance,  but  Lateran 
has  taught  them  that  oaths  are  breath  when  the  interests  of 
the  Church  demand  their  violation.  There  is  but  one  tie 
which  is  stronger  than  death — the  tie  which  binds  them  to 
Rome.  Living  or  dying,  in  all  states  and  conditions,  in 
poverty  or  wealth,  at  home  or  abroad,  wherever  they  are  or 
whatever  they  do,  Rome  must  never  be  forgotten.  The 
claims  of  brotherhood,  friendship,  patriotism  and  honour — 
all  that  is  dear  on  earth  in  private  relations  or  public  in- 
stitutions— all  must  be  sacrificed  when  the  voice  of  Rome 
commands  it.  She  holds  in  her  hands  the  dread  retributions 
of  eternity;  heaven  or  hell  depends  upon  her  nod;  and 
when  she  brings  to  bear  her  terrific  sanctions,  her  faithful 
children  throughout  the .  world,  to  avoid  the  impending 
storm,  nestle  beneath  her  wings.  Where  is  the  State,  com- 
munity or  nation  on  the  whole  face  of  the  earth  that  can 
thunder  with  a  voice  like  Rome?  What  are  laws,  statutes, 
ordinances  and  oaths  when  a  single  word  from  the  Eternal 
City  can  turn  them,  in  the  eyes  of  Pa[)ists,  to  vanity  and 
Mnnd?  When  was  it  ever  known  that  a  faithful  .son  of  the 
Church  respected  the  laws  as  much  as  his  priest,  his  country 

^  See  the  question  dificus.sed,  "How  far  the  religion  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  is  tolerable  ?"  in  Taylor's  '  Liberty  of  Prophe.'^ying,'   §  xx. 


552   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  VIII. 

as  much  as  Rome,  the  highest  tribunal  of  the  land  as  much 
as  the  Pope?  It  is  idle  to  attempt  to  disguise  the  fact  that 
the  religion  of  the  Pope  is  essentially  seditious.  In  its 
grasping  ambition  it  tramples  upon  thrones,  principalities 
and  powers,  subverts  the  liberty  of  nations,  destroys  the 
independence  of  States,  and  makes  the  sword  and  the  sceptre 
alike  subservient  to  its  own  relentless  despotism.  These 
results  so  obviously  follow  from  the  claims  to  temporal 
authority,  which  have  already  been  considered,  that  many 
Papists  have  been  disposed  to  restrict  the  power  of  the  Pope 
wholly  within  spiritual  bounds.  Hence  a  third  view — that 
maintained  by  the  Parliament  of  Paris  and  endorsed  by  the 
Galilean  clergy — remains  to  be  considered. 

According  to  this  view,  kings  and  rulers  are  not  subject 
to  the  Sovereign  PontiiF  in  the  conduct  of  their  secular 
aifairs.  Their  jurisdiction  is  distinct  from  his:  he  moves 
in  the  orbit  of  spiritual  dominion,  and  they  in  the  orbit  of 
temporal  authority;  he  deals  in  matters  of  supernatural 
faith,  and  they  in  matters  of  civil  obedience.  This  theory 
is  beautiful  and  the  distinction  is  just,  but  the  doctrine  of 
infallibility  renders  them  practically  worthless.  The  Pope 
has  power  to  define  articles  of  faith  and  to  instruct  the 
faitliful  in  the  will  of  God.  Whatever  he  proposes  as  an 
article  of  faith  must,  of  course,  be  received  with  undoubting 
faith.  To  admit  the  right  of  the  people  to  determine  what 
are  articles  of  faith,  and  what  are  not,  would  be  to  intro- 
duce the  odious  principle  of  the  right  of  private  judgment. 
Then  if  the  Pope  has  plenary  power  to  define  the  articles 
of  Catholic  faith,  and  if  everything  is  to  be  received  as  an 
article  of  faith  which  he  proposes  as  such,  he  can  easily  in- 
troduce his  arbitrary  claims  to  temporal  jurisdiction  under 
the  convenient  disguise  of  supernatural  revelation.  He  will 
not  directly  assert  that  he  possesses  the  power  of  deposing 
kings  or  subverting  nations,  but  it  is  the  will  of  God  that 
heretical  magistrates  should  not  be  encouraged,  and  obe- 
dience to  their  laws  is  a  sanction  of  their  crimes.  He  might 
caution  the  faithful  not  to  be  partakers  in  other  men's  sins, 


Lett.  VIII.]  INFALLIBILITY    AND   CIVIL   GOVERNMENT.  553 

and  guard  them  especially  from  encouraging  the  great  in 
rebellion  against  God.  The  nice  distinctions  of  the  Gal- 
ilean Church  are  mere  dust  and  ashes,  unless  the  doctrine 
of  infallibility  is  denied  and  the  right  of  private  judgment 
maintained.  If  the  people  are  bound  to  believe  whatever 
the  Pope  may  prescribe  as  an  article  of  faith,  the  door  is 
thrown  wide  open — as  open  as  Hildebrand  himself  could 
wish  it — for  the  introduction  of  all  manner  of  treason.  It 
is  an  idle  evasion  to  say  that  although  men  are  not  judges 
of  spiritual  matters,  yet  they  are  judges  of  temporal  mat- 
ters, and  therefore  capable  of  deciding  when  the  Sovereign 
Pontiff  invades  the  territory  of  temporal  jurisdiction.  This 
plea  would  be  good  if  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  were  fallible. 
They  might  then  oppose  their  judgments  to  his  decision. 
But  if  he  be  infallible,  and  pronounces  a  principle  to  be  an 
article  of  faith  which  they  beforehand  would  have  viewed 
as  belonging  to  the  sphere  of  the  civil  magistrate,  they  must, 
of  course,  yield  their  fallible  opinion  to  an  infallible  decis- 
ion. A  crust  of  bread  is  mutton,  wine  and  beef,  the  sacred 
wafer  is  the  Redeemer  of  men,  soul,  body  and  divinity,  if 
Rome  pronounces  them  to  be  so.  It  is  not  more  unreason- 
able that  we  should  abandon  our  judgments  about  political 
rights  at  the  bidding  of  his  Holiness  than  that  we  should 
renounce  our  confidence — instinctive  though  it  be — in  the 
report  of  our  senses.  Practically,  therefore,  the  theory  of 
the  Galilean  clergy  is  no  security  from  the  encroachments 
of  Rome;  so  long  as  infallibility  is  maintained,  it  will  poi- 
son the  purest  ])rinciples  and  corrupt  the  fairest  schemes. 
It  affords  an  abundant  entrance  for  that  indirect  power  over 
States,  nations  and  empires  for  which  doctors  have  pleaded, 
councils  decreed  and  popes  intrigued. 

It  is  a  pungent  saying  of  Passavan,  that  "Satan  tendered 
the  earth  and  all  its  glory  to  Immanuel,  and  met  with  a 
per('mj)tory  rejection;  he  afterwards  made  the  same  overture 
to  the  Pope,  who  accepted  the  offer  with  tlianks  and  yv'ith. 
the  annexed  condition  of  worshipping  the  Prince  of  Dark- 
ness."    The  subtle  arts  and  crafty  machinations  by  which, 


554    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  VIII. 

from  small  beginnings,  the  popes  have  usurped,  under 
various  pretexts,  the  right  of  universal  dominion,  are  a 
pregnant  proof  of  an  intimate  alliance  with  the  flither  of 
lies.  Their  first  interferences  in  the  affairs  of  States  were 
slow  and  gradual ;  they  were  content  to  use  their  spiritual 
authority  in  instigating  subjects  to  rebellion  or  embroiling 
nations  in  war.  Encouraged  by  success,  they  rose  higher 
and  higher  in  their  claims,  until  the  summit  of  pontifical 
arrogance  was  reached  in  the  person  of  Hildebrand.  AVhat 
a  chasm  between  Gregory  I.  and  Gregory  VII.,  filled  up 
with  gins,  snares  and  nets,  fraud,  hypocrisy  and  lies !  While 
"  the  successors  of  St.  Peter  "  have  pretended  to  labour  for 
the  salvation  of  souls,  it  is  plain  that  nations  have  been 
their  game,  kings  their  victims  and  diadems  their  hope. 
The  golden  vision  of  universal  empire,  which  encouraged 
the  zeal,  quickened  the  efforts  and  soothed  the  anxieties  of 
Gregory  VII.,  has  never  ceased  to  float  before  the  minds 
of  his  successors,  and  make  them  at  once  the  enemies  of 
man  and  the  objects  of  abhorrence  to  God.  Their  eyes 
are  fixed  upon  the  Earthy  and  the  cup  of  their  ambition  will 
never  be  full  until,  from  east  to  west,  from  north  to  south, 
every  kindred,  tongue  and  language,  all  the  tribes  and  flim- 
ilies  of  man,  shall  acknowledge  the  Pope  as  king  of  kings 
and  lord  of  lords.  To  accomplish  this  grand  and  magnif- 
icent purpose,  Jesuits  are  found  in  every  country,  plying 
their  labours  with  untiring  zeal.  Their  voice  is  heard  amid 
the  roar  of  the  cataract  in  the  forests  of  the  savage,  or  it 
charms  the  circles  of  the  giddy  and  the  gay  in  the  saloons 
of  refinement  and  elegance.  Their  shadows  are  seen  in  the 
dusky  light  of  the  convict's  cell,  and  their  persons  are  found 
in  the  halls  of  the  great  and  the  palaces  of  kings.  They 
stoop  to  instruct  the  child  in  its  alphabet  and  the  young  in 
philosophy,  and  delight  to  discuss  with  senators  and  states- 
men the  policy  of  States.  Hunger,  cold  and  all  the  inclem- 
encies of  the  sky  are  cheerfully  endured  in  their  exhausting 
journeys ;  the  frosts  of  winter  consume  them  by  night  and 
sleep  departs  from  their  eyes,  and  yet  their  zeal  is  invin- 


Lett.  VIII.]  INFALLIBILITY    AND    CIVIL    GOVERNMENT.  555 

cible  and  their  indu.stiy  untiring.  There  is  one  glorious 
object  which  animates  their  hopes,  which  lifts  them  above 
the  ordinary  passions  of  man,  and  renders  them  insensible 
to  danger  and  fearless  of  death.  That  object  is  the  triumph 
of  Rome.  For  her  they  have  sacrificed  moral  character, 
personal  comforts,  the  delights.of  patriotism  and  the  endear- 
luents  of  home.  To  her  they  are  devoted  with  a  terrible 
enthusiasm,  which  is  cool  and  collected,  because  too  intense 
to  be  vented  in  passion  or  wasted  in  extravagance;  and  if 
Rome  sliould  ever  triumph,  they  are  the  men  whose  prin- 
ciples shall  be  lord  of  the  ascendant  and  dictate  law  to  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth.  In  their  diligence,  industry,  zeal 
and  enthusiasm  let  the  people  of  this  country  learn  their 
danger  and  provide  for  their  safety. 

There  are  peculiar  principles  in  the  constitution  of  the 
polity  of  Rome  which  render  it  an  engine  of  tremendous 
power.  The  doctrine  of  auricular  confession  establishes  a 
system  of  espionage  which  is  absolutely  fatal  to  personal  in- 
dependence, and  from  the  intimate  connection  between  priests 
and  bishops,  and  bishops  and  the  Pope,  all  the  important 
secrets  of  the  earth  can  easily  be  transmitted  to  the  Vatican. 
What  can  be  more  alarming  tlian  a  whole  army  scattered 
through  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land  in  clo.se  and 
secret  correspondence  with  a  tyrant  wlio  detests  every  prin- 
ciple that  makes  life  dear  or  a  country  glorious?  The 
ingenuity  of  earth  and  hell  could  not  devise  a  more  success- 
ful expedient  for  prostrating  liberty,  enslaving  the  con- 
science, and  introducing  the  Pope  to  an  intimate  acquaint- 
ance with  all  the  purposes  and  interests  of  man,  than  the 
scheme  of  auricular  confession.  It  opens  a  window  into 
the  chambers  of  the  heart,  and  permits  a  mortal  to  read 
those  secrets  which  it  is  tlie  sole  ])rerogative  of  Gnd  to  know, 

I  have  now,  I  a})prehend,  sufficiently  shown  that,  accord- 
ing tt)  the  princi])les  of  Rome,  the  civil  power  is  sub.><ervient 
to  the  spiritual,  the  State  is  a  tool  of  the  Church.  It  will 
be  seen  at  a  glance  that  such  an  assumption  is  not  only  fatal 
to  the  independence  of  States,  but  etpially  fatal  to  liberty 


556    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  VIII. 

of  conscience  and  toleration  of  dissenters.  The  riglit  to 
persecnte  is  a  legitimate  deduction  from  the  relative  position 
in  which  the  Church  and  State,  on  the  pontifical  hypothesis, 
stand  to  each  other.  It  is  the  business  of  the  magistrate  to 
propagate  religion,  and  as  his  weapons  are  exclusively  car- 
nal— the  dungeon,  pillory  and  rack — he  has  a  right  to 
employ  them  in  exacting  uniformity  of  faith.  Bossuet  was 
able  to  boast  that  on  one  point  all  Christians  had  long  been 
unanimous — the  right  of  the  civil  magistrate  to  propagate 
truth  by  the  sword.  In  every  form  and  shape,  by  the  writ- 
ings of  private  individuals,  the  bulls  of  popes,  the  canons 
of  councils,  and  above  all  by  public,  flagrant,  inhuman  acts 
of  murder,  rapine  and  violence,  the  Holy  See  has  asserted 
its  claim  to  mould  the  faith  of  men,  through  the  arm  of 
the  magistrate,  to  its  own  detestable  model.  I  need  not 
insist  on  the  ruthless  crusades  again.st  the  innocent  victims 
of  Languedoc  and  Provence,  on  the  infernal  atrocities  of 
the  Inquisition  or  the  awful  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew's; 
the  annals  of  the  Papacy  are  written  in  blood.  From  almost 
every  quarter  of  the  globe  the  victims  of  its  cruelties  shall 
send  their  cries  to  Heaven  for  vengeance  on  their  destroyers. 
It  is  enough  to  know  that  if  the  infallibility  of  Rome  were 
not  pledged  through  her  Pope  and  councils  to  the  ferocious 
principles  of  persecution,  it  results  necessarily  from  the 
views  which  she  takes  of  the  State.  In  her  eyes  want  of 
conformity  with  her  own  faith  is  an  act  of  rebellion,  a  con- 
tumacious rejection  of  civil  authority,  and  should  therefore 
be  punished  by  the  temporal  power,  on  the  same  ground  as 
that  on  which  punishment  for  incest,  rape  or  murder  is  jus- 
tified. It  is,  first,  according  to  her,  the  duty  of  govern- 
ments as  such  to  spread  her  faith  at  the  point  of  the  bayo- 
net and  with  garments  rolled  in  blood.  The  truth  is,  the 
only  principle  which  can  secure  an  equal  toleration  and 
uphold  the  liberty  of  conscience  is  the  absolute  separcdion 
of  Church  and  State.  They  cannot  contract  an  alliance 
without  engendering  the  monster  Intolerance.  Csesar  and 
God  must  be  kept  distinct;  the  State,  when  it  assumes  the 


Lktt.  VIII.]  INFALLIBILITY   AND   CIVIL   GOVERNMENT.  557 

])ropagation  of  religion  as  one  of  its  distinctive  ends,  is 
travelling  beyond  its  limits,  and  laying  the  foundation  of 
Mgotry,  intolerance  and  despotism  ;  and  no  Church  on  earth 
has  a  right  to  commend  its  doctrines  or  enforce  its  discipline 
by  pains,  penalties  or  civil  disabilities.  To  keep  the  State 
within  the  bounds  of  its  appropriate  jurisdiction  is  the  secret 
of  civil  liberty,  and  to  restrain  the  Church  within  its  OAvn 
de})artment  of  spiritual  instruction  is  the  secret  of  religious 
liberty.  When  these  two  grand  organizations  of  God  cross 
the  orbits  of  each  other  they  menace  the  earth  with  anar- 
chy, confusion  and  blood.  They  can  never  coalesce;  and  all 
arbitrary  unions,  like  the  converse  of  the  sons  of  God  with 
the  daughters  of  men,  are  productive  only  of  giants  famous 
for  rebellion  and  full  of  cruelty. 

I  shall  now  close  what  I  intended  to  suggest  on  the  infal- 
libility of  the  Romish  Church.  It  will  be  remembered  that 
you,  sir,  made  this  the  medium  of  your  triumphant  jaroof 
of  the  inspiration  of  the  Apocrypha.  I  hav.e  met  and 
refuted  all  your  arguments,  and  shown  in  addition  that 
every  theory  of  Papal  infallibility,  whether  that  of  coun- 
cils, popes,  or  the  body  of  the  Church,  is  compassed  with 
, historical  difficulties  fatal  to  its  truth.  I  have  proved, 
moreover,  that  such  extravagant  pretensions  are  utterly 
inconsistent  with  truth,  morality,  religion  and  liberty — the 
highest  and  noblest  interests  of  man.  The  state  of  the 
argument,  then,  is  just  this :  First,  Infallibility  is  a  fiction, 
resting  upon  no  authority  of  Scripture,  upon  no  principles 
of  reason,  and  contradicted  by  the  testimony  of  the  best 
and  purest  ages  of  the  Church.  Therefore  any  argument 
wdiich  is  based  upon  this  "worthless  coinage  of  the  brain" 
may  be  safely  given  to  the  winds,  and  therefore  your  proof 
of  the  inspiration  of  the  Apocrypha  w^ould  have  been  just  as 
conclusive  if  you  had  appealed  to  the  testimony  of  the  man 
in  the  moon.  Secondly,  If  infallibility  be  admitted,  then 
truth,  morality,  religion  and  liberty  must  fall  to  the  ground  ; 
for  it  is  absolutely  inconsistent  with  all  these  distinguished 
blessings.     Here,  then,  is  a  perfect  reductio  ad  absurdum ; 


558      ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.     [Lett.  IX. 

SO  that  infallibility  destroys  itself,  and  leaves  us  in  quiet 
possession  of  private  judgment,  with  all  the  benefits  that 
follow  in  its  train. 


LETTER   IX. 

APOCRYPHA    NOT    QUOTED    IN    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  third  general  division  of  your 
letters,  I  shall  pause  for  a  moment  to  discuss  a  point  which 
would  detain  me  too  long  in  its  proper  place,  and  which 
may  be  taken  as  a  fair  illustration  of  your  mode  of  resolv- 
ing any  question  involving  the  laws  of  literary  criticism. 
When  I  read  your  effort  to  prove  that  Christ  and  the  Apos- 
tles in  their  recorded  instruction  actually  quoted  or  referred 
to  passages  of  the  Apocrypha,  I  was  forcibly  reminded  of 
those  ingenious  and  discriminating  authors  who  have  been 
able  to  discover  what  they  supposed  to  be  unquestionable 
traces  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Cabala  in  the  Lord's  Prayer 
and  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  Those  who  can  be  convinced  by 
the  parade  of  texts  which  you  have  strung  together  in  your 
second  letter  ought  not  to  withhold  their  assent  from  the 
learned  speculations  of  Knorrius,  confirmed  as  they  are  by 
the  authority  of  so  laborious  a  writer  as  Buddoeus.  A  man 
of  sufficient  perspicacity  to  find  the  Cabala  in  the  memora- 
ble declaration  of  Paul,  "  It  is  a  faithful  saying,  and  worthy 
of  all  acceptation,  that  Christ  Jesus  came  into  the  world  to 
save  sinners,"  who  should  also  detect  in  the  New  Testament 
traces  of  Apocryphal  lore,  would  only  exercise  in  a  different 
way  the  same  faculty  of  critical  second-sight.  He  that  can 
discern  disembodied  spirits  requires  perhaps  no  additional 
organs  to  perceive  a  devil.  The  passages  which  you  have 
followed  Huetius  in  adducing  as  genuine  quotations  from  the 
Apocrypha,  I  am  sure  will  strike  no  one  in  the  same  light 
but  those  who  are  previously  ]>ersuaded  that  if  these  books 
are  not,  they  ought  to  have  been,  quoted  by  Christ  and  his 


Lett.  IX.]     it   IS   NOT   QUOTED    IN    NEW   TESTAMENT.       559 

Apostles.  Tlie  strongest  evidence,  I  apprehend,  upon  which 
your  position  can  be  made  to  rest  will  be  found  in  an  appeal 
to  a  General  Council.  If  you  could  induce  some  such  body 
as  that  of  Trent  to  decree  that  these  passages  are  quotations, 
why  then  quotations  they  would  have  to  be  considered. 

The  first  text  which  you  give  us  as  a  quotation  from  the 
Apocrypha  is  the  golden  rule  of  our  Saviour :  "  Therefore 
all  things  whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you, 
do  ye  even  so  to  them ;  for  this  is  the  law  and  the  proph- 
ets.'" Matt.  vii.  12;  Luke  vi.  31.  This  you  would  have 
us  to  believe  was  suggested  to  the  Saviour  by  Tobit  iv.  15, 
which  in  the  Douay  version  is  rendered,  "  See  thou  never 
do  to  another  what  thou  wouldest  hate  to  have  done  to  thee 
by  another."  The  reader,  however,  will  observe  that  this 
is  not  a  translation  but  a  paraphrase.  The  original  is, 
o  [iKTBo:  !ir/)evc  zocr^arii; — "What  thou  hatest  do  to  no  one." 
Now  the  question  is,  whether  the  four  words  that  constitute 
the  substance  of  the  Apocryphal  passage  suggested  to  our 
Lord  the  fifteen  words  which  in  the  original  embody  the 
golden  rule  as  found  in  the  memorable  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
There  is  evidently  no  quotation  in  the  case,  since  there  is 
but  a  single  word  which  they  have  in  common.  Neither,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  there  any  such  coincidence  of  thought  as 
to  warrant  the  supposition  that  our  Saviour  had  in  his  mind 
the  passage  from  Tobit  when  he  announced  the  principle 
recorded  in  Matthew.  Our  Saviour's  precept,  as  Grotius 
has  very  properly  observed,  is  positive,  while  that  in  Tobit 
is  negative.  In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  our  Saviour  tells 
us  what  to  perform,  and  Tobit,  in  his  instructions  to  his  son, 
what  to  avoid ;  the  one  resolves  us  in  the  things  that  are 
right,  and  the  other  in  the  things  that  are  wrong.  One,  in 
short,  is  a  command,  the  other  a  prohibition.  There  is  no 
more   coincidence  of  thought  betwixt   these   two  passages 

'  Hiietius,  who  also  gives  the  golden  rule  as  a  quotation  from  this  pas- 
sage of  Tobit,  adinit8,  at  the  same  time,  that  it  might  have  been  suggested 
as  a  dictate  of  natui-e. — Demonslratio  Evanc/ei,  Propos.  IV.,  j).  361 :  Ue 
Libra  Tobias. 


560     ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.     [Lett.  IX. 

than  between  Ex.  xx.  15,  "Thou  shalt  not  steal,"  and 
Rom.  xiii.  7,  "Render,  therefore,  to  all  their  dues."  And 
yet  who  would  dream  of  maintaining  that  the  precept  of 
Paul  is  either  a  literal  quotation  of  the  eighth  command- 
ment, or  was  necessarily  suggested  by  the  form  in  which  it 
is  recorded  in  the  book  of  Exodus  ?  "  What  thou  hatest," 
says  Tobit,  "  do  to  none."  "  What  thou  lovest,"  says  our 
Saviour,  substantially,  "  do  to  all."  If,  now,  our  Saviour 
quoted  from  Tobit,  upon  the  same  principle  of  criticism 
every  positive,  contrary  to  the  usual  order  of  thought,  must 
be  suggested  by  its  corresponding  negative.  But  our  Saviour 
himself  has  put  the  matter  beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt. 
The  rule  which  He  gave  us  was  a  compendious  expression 
of  the  moral  instructions  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  As 
you  have  freely  acknowledged  that  the  Apocryphal  writings 
were  not  to  be  found  in  the  Canon  of  the  Jewish  Church, 
you  will  hardly  contend  that  the  "iazo  and  the  Prophets'' 
embraced  any  of  those  books  which  Josephus  mentions  as 
not  being  possessed  of  equal  authority  with  the  twenty-two 
which  he  had  previously  enumerated.  You  will  also  admit — 
for  it  would  certainly  be  useless  to  deny — that  the  canonical 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  divided  into  three  clas.ses : 
the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Hagiographa.  Now,  if  the 
Saviour  Himself  is  to  be  trusted.  His  memorable  rule  must 
have  been  suggested  by  something  which  is  found  not  in 
any  Apocryphal  writer,  but  in  the  Law  and  the  Prophets, 
in  the  acknowledged  Canon  of  the  Jewish  Church.  His 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  in  fact  a  Divine  exposition  of  the 
ethical  code  which  is  contained  in  the  Old  Testament,  with 
special  reference  to  the  corruptions  and  abuses  which  igno- 
rant and  wicked  teachers  had  introduced  and  fostered.  He 
explains  the  moral  law,  and  maintains  its  strictness,  purity 
and  extent  in  opposition  to  the  destructive  glosses  of  the 
Scribes,  Pharisees  and  Doctors. 

The  golden  rule  itself  is  evidently  nothing  but  a  state- 
ment, in  another  form,  of  the  principle  of  universal  love. 
Our  own  expectations  from  others  are  made  the  standard  of 


Lett.  IX.]      it   is   XOT   QUOTED    IX   NEW    TESTAMExNT.     561 

our  conduct  towards  them— tliat  i.s,  our  love  to  ourselves  is 
to  be  the  exact  measure  of  our  love  to  other  men.     The 
passage   in  Matt.  xxii.  35-40  will   throw  additional   light 
upon  this  whole  subject.     Our  Saviour  there  condenses  the 
law  into  two  great  commandments— love  to  God,  and  love  to 
man;   and   then  adds  that  "on   these  two  commandments 
hang  all  the  Law  and  the  Pmphds."     It  is  evident,  there- 
fore, that  Matt.  vii.  12  teaches  precisely  the  same  thing  as 
Matt.  xxii.  39  :  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself;" 
and  this  passage  is  a  literal  quotation,  not  from  Tobit,  but 
from  the  book  of  Leviticus  (xix.  18).     This  was  the'text 
upon  which  our  Saviour's  mind  was  unquestionably  fixed 
when  he  announced  his  celebrated  maxim ;  it  was,  in  fact, 
constantly  before  his  eyes,  and  so  frequently  explained,  as 
well  as  earnestly  inculcated  and  enforced  by  so  many  new 
and  peculiar  sanctions,  as  to  be  almost  entitled  to  the  name 
of  a  new  commandment.      Between  the  rule  in  Leviticus 
and  the  precept  of  our  Saviour  there  is  an  exact  coinci- 
dence of  thought.     Both  are  positive,  and  both  make  our 
regard  for  ourselves  the  standard  of  our  treatment  to  others. 
One   is   the   text   and   the   other   a   faithful   commentary. 
"  Love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself,"  says  the  Law—"  What 
you  would  love  to  have  done  to  you,  do  to  others,"  says  the 
Saviour.     How  it  could  fail  to  strike  your  attention  that 
the  passage  in  Leviticus  was '  especially  before  the  mind  of 
our  Redeemer,  when  he  refers  you  so  distinctly  to  the  Law, 
surpasses  my  comprehension. 

You  are  hardly  more  successful  in  your  attempt  to  deduce 
the  magnificent  description  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  in 
the  Apocalypse  of  John  from  what  you  suppose  to  be  a  cor- 
responding i3assage  in  the  same  book  of  Tobit.'  You  have 
again  followed  the  Douay  version,  which,  however  it  may 
agree  with  the  Vulgate,  does  not  precisely  render  the  origi- 
nal. The  English  reader  will  find  the  passage  to  whi'^h 
you  refer  in  Tobit  xiii.  15-18  of  the  authorized  translation. 
There  can  be  evidently  no  quotation  in  this  passage,  since 
'  Vide  Huetii,  Denionstratio,  Propos.iv.,  pp.  301,  362:  De  Libro  Tobire 
Vol.  Ill— ,3fi 


562     ARGUMENTS   FOR  APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.     [Lett.  IX. 

John  is  describing  a  vision  just  as  he  saw  it.  He  saw  the 
jasper,  gokl  and  precious  stones  which  adorned  tlie  founda- 
tions of  the  holy  city,  and  testifies  wliat  he  had  seen.  He 
does  not  pretend  to  give  us  a  picture  of  the  fancy,  but  a 
real  view,  and  of  course  his  language  must  be  suggested  by 
the  things  themselves.  In  such  descriptions  quotations  may 
be  introduced  to  embellish  or  adorn,  but  most  assuredly  the 
names  of  things  themselves  must  be  suggested  by  the  objects 
before  the  mind.  Again,  the  whole  description  is  so  strik- 
ingly analogous  to  several  passages  in  Isaiah  and  Ezekiel 
that  if  there  be  any  allusion  to  other  writers  at  all  it  is  to 
these  venerable  Prophets.  The  twelve  gates  in  the  vision 
of  John  correspond  precisely  to  the  twelve  gates  in  the 
vision  of  Ezekiel  (xlviii.  31-34).  The  golden  reed  with 
which  the  angel  measured  the  city,  and  the  gates  thereof 
and  the  wall  thereof,  may  be  in  allusion  to  the  measuring- 
reed  and  the  line  of  flax  in  Ezekiel  xl.  3.  The  garnishing 
of  the  foundations  of  the  wall  with  all  manner  of  precious 
stones  corresponds  with  the  promise  of  Isaiah  (liv.  11,  12): 
"  I  will  lay  thy  stones  with  fair  colours,  and  lay  thy  foun- 
dation with  sapphires.  And  I  Avill  make  thy  windows  of 
agates,  and  thy  gates  of  carbuncles,  and  all  thy  borders  of 
pleasant  stones."  The  brilliant  illumination  of  the  city  by 
the  presence  of  God  is  in  exact  accordance  with  Isaiah  xxiv. 
23;  Ix.  19,  20.  The  truth  is,  these  precious  stones  with 
which  the  city  was  adorned,  as  seen  by  John,  are  the  com- 
mon and  familiar  figures  by  which  the  glory  of  the  Church 
is  constantly  depicted  in  the  sacred  writings.  The  splendid 
decorations  of  Solomon's  temple,  independently  of  any  other 
cause,  would  naturally  suggest  these  symbolical  embellish- 
ments. That  they  occur,  consequently,  in  different  writers, 
and  in  the  same  connection,  is  no  proof  whatever  of  quota- 
tion or  reference ;  it  only  shows  a  familiar  and  common 
method  of  illustration.  If  the  Church,  for  instance,  be 
compared  to  a  kingdom,  two  or  a  dozen  writers  might 
describe  its  peculiarities  in  conformity  with  this  scriptural 
metaphor,  and  yet  be  ignorant  of  each  other's  compositions. 


Lett.  IX.]      IT   IS   NOT   QUOTED   IN   NEW   TESTAMENT.     563 

The  metaphor  itself  would  suggest  analogous  trains  of 
thought.  So  when  the  Church  is  compared  to  a  city,  to  a 
splendid  and  magnificent  city,  the  usual  appendages  of 
walls,  gates  and  ornaments  will  be  obviously  presented  to 
the  mind,  or  if  it  be  compared  to  a  temple,  the  splendour 
and  pomp  of  Solomon's  unparalleled  edifice  would  probably 
be  the  first  association  in  a  Jewish  understanding. 

It  manifests,  therefore,  the  strangest  inattention  to  the 
laws  of  thought  to  suppose  that  the  description  of  the  holy 
city  in  the  Apocalypse  of  John  must  needs  be  taken  from 
the  rhapsody  of  Tobit,  because  both  speak  of  walls  and 
foundations,  jasper,  amethyst  and  gold.  It  is  much  more 
probable  that  Tobit  borrowed  from  Chronicles,  Ezckiel 
and  Isaiah. 

Your  attempt  to  make  1  Cor.  x.  9,  10  a  quotation  from 
Judith  scarcely  needs  refutation.^  Paul  is  apjiealing  to  the 
recorded  history  of  the  "  fathers,"  as  furnishing  salutary 
examples  of  practical  instruction.  He  gives  us,  conse- 
quently, a  brief  summary  of  the  leading  events  connected 
with  their  removal  from  Egypt  and  their  ultimate  settle- 
ment in  Canaan.  This  summary,  of  course,  is  taken  from 
the  history  itself.     It  is  just  an  epitome  of  what  may  be 

1  "  Tliirdly,  in  favour  of  the  book  of  Judith  they  bring  two  citations — 
one  made  by  St.  Paul  when  he  said,  They  tvere  destroyed  by  the  destroyer, 
and  another  by  St.  James,  who  said.  The  Scripture  was  fulfilled,  and  Abra- 
ham ivas  called  the  friend  of  God;  both  which  passages  (if  there  were  any 
credit  to  be  given  to  Serarius)  are  borrowed  out  of  the  eighth  chapter  of 
Judith,  as  we  read  them  in  the  Latin  paraphrase  of  that  book ;  for  in  tlie 
Greek  copies  there  is  never  a  word  like  them  to  be  found.  But  whom  shall 
the  Jesuit  persuade  that  the  Apostles  quoted  a  Latin  pai-aphrase  which 
wa.s  not  extant  in  their  time?  Or  if  we  should  grant  that  tlie  Greek  or 
Chaldean  copies  had  as  much  in  them  of  old  as  the  Latin  hath  now,  yet 
who  would  believe  that  St.  Paul  and  St.  .James  alluded  rather  to  the  book 
of  Judith  than  to  the  book  of  Numbers,*  where  they  that  were  destroyed  by 
the  destroyer  are  upon  record  at  large,  and  to  the  book  of  Genesis,f  where 
the  story  of  Abraham  is  recited,  together  with  the  second  book  of  the 
Chronicles,!  where  Abraham  is  called  the  friend  of  God,  and  the  book 
of  Esay,|l  where  God  himself  saith  of  him,  "Abraham  my  friend  ^ — Cosin, 
Scholast.  Hist.  Can.,  p.  2'>. 

*  Numb,  xiv.,  xvi.        f  (icn.  xv.-xviii.        J  2  Chron.  xx.  7.        j|  Isa.  xli.  8. 


564     ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.     [Lett.  IX. 

found  fully  recorded  in  the  books  of  ]\Ioses.  The  passage 
in  Judith,  therefore,  is  just  as  much  a  quotation  from  the 
Pentateuch  as  that  of  Paul.  Strictly,  however,  neither 
passage  is  a  quotation.  Both  ^Titers  have  simply  availed 
themselves  of  the  same  facts  to  inculcate  lessons  of  piety 
and  wisdom. 

Your  fourth  passage  is  equally  unfortunate.  Matthew 
xiii.  43  is  not  a  quotation  from  the  book  of  Wisdom,  but  is 
a  palpable  allusion  to  Daniel  xi.  3  and  Proverbs  iv.  18. 
The  passage  in  Matthew  is,  "  Then  shall  the  righteous  shine 
forth  as  the  sun  in  the  kingdom  of  their  Father."  The 
passage  in  Wisdom  is,  "  In  the  time  of  their  visitation  they 
shall  shine  and  run  to  and  fro  like  sparks  among  the 
stubble." 

Now,  how  is  it  possible  that  "running  to  and  fro  like 
sparks  among  the  stubble "  could  ever  suggest  the  idea  of 
the  brilliancy  of  the  sun  in  the  firmament  of  heaven  ?  If 
in  the  book  of  Wisdom  it  had  been  written  that  the  right- 
eous should  be  like  glow-worms  or  fire-flies,  there  would 
have  been  just  as  solid  foundations  for  saying  that  this  gave 
rise  to  the  magnificent  image  of  the  Saviour  in  depicting 
the  fate  of  the  just  at  the  end  of  the  world.  The  expres- 
sion in  Daniel  is  suited  to  the  dignity  of  the  subject: 
"  They  that  be  wise  shall  shine  as  the  brightness  of  the 
firmament,"  or  as  it  is  in  Proverbs,  "  The  path  of  the  just 
is  as  the  shining  light,  that  shineth  more  and  more  unto  the 
perfect  day." 

Equally  futile  is  your  attempt  to  make  1  Cor.  vi.  2  a 
quotation  from  Wisdom  iii.  8.  It  is,  in  fact,  only  another 
form  of  stating  the  promise  that  the  kingdom  and  the  great- 
ness of  the  kingdom  under  the  whole  heaven  shall  be  given 
to  the  people  of  the  saints  of  the  most  high  God.  Paul 
had  before  his  mind  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the  kingdom 
of  God,  Avhich  is  the  burden  of  prophetic  inspiration  and  the 
constant  subject  of  believing  prayer.  We  have  precisely 
the  same  idea  in  Psalm  xlix.  14 :  "  Like  sheep  they  are 
laid  in  the  grave ;  death  shall  feed  on  them,  and  the  uprigiit 


Lett.  IX.]       IT   IS    NOT   QUOTED    IN    NEW   TESTAMENT.      565 

.shall  have  domiuiou  over  them  in  the  morning."  And  in 
Daniel  vii.  32:  "Judgment  was  given  to  the  saints  of  the 
]Most  High,  and  the  time  came  that  the  saints  possessed  the 
kingdom." 

Wisdom^  iv.  10  and  Hebrews  xi.  15  are  both  in  pointed 
reference  to  Genesis  v.  22-24,  and  therefore  neither  is  a 
quotation  from  the  other.  Paul  was  not  in  the  habit  of 
dealing  with  second-hand  authorities.  He  therefore  goes 
to  the  original  record  for  the  history  of  Enoch,  and  not  to  a 
doubtful  and  obscure  writer  some  centuries  afterwards. 

1  "  In  the  first  place,  for  the  canonizing  of  the  book  of  Wisdom  they 
produce  St.  Paul,  and  say  that  Kom.  xi.  34  (Who  hath  made  known  the 
mind  of  the  Lord,  or  who  hath  been  His  counsellor  ?)  is  taken  out  of 
W^isdom  ix.  13  (For  what  man  is  he  that  can  know  the  counsel  of  God,  or 
who  can  think  what  the  will  of  the  Lord  is?).  But  Gretser  is  .somewhat 
ashamed  of  this  instance,  and  our  answer  to  it  is,  that  the  sentence  which 
St.  Paul  citeth  is  clearly  taken  out  of  Esay  xl.  13,  where  both  the  sense 
and  the  words  (in  that  translation  which  the  Apostle  followed)  are  alto- 
gether the  same,  as  in  the  book  of  Wisdom  they  are  not.  Secondly,  as 
much  may  we  say  to  what  they  note  upon  Heb.  i.  3,  where  Christ  is  called 
the  brightness  of  His  Father's  glory,  alluding  to  Sap.  vii.  26,  where  Wis- 
dom is  called  the  brightness  of  everlasting  light.  For  as  it  is  not  certain 
whether  St.  Paul  ever  saw  that  book  of  Wisdom  or  no,  which,  for  aught 
we  know,  was  not  extant  before  his  time,  nor  compiled  by  any  other  author 
than  Philo,  the  Hellenist  Jew  of  Alexandria,  so  there  be  several  expres- 
sions in  the  undoubted  Scriptures  concerning  the  representation,  the  splen- 
dour, the  wisdom  and  the  glory  of  God,  whereunto  he  might  allude  in  this 
his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  he  had  done  before  in  hLs  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians  and  in  his  second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  setting  forth 
Christ  there  to  be  the  image  of  the  invisible  God  and  the  first-born  of  every 
creature,  by  whom  all  things  were  created,  and  do  still  consist;  the  substance 
and  ground  whereof  may  be  found  in  Ezekiel  i.  28 ;  Isaiah  ix.  6  and  Ix.  1 ; 
Psalm  ii.  7  and  cxxxvi.  5 ;  2  Samuel  vii.  14 ;  Jeremiah  li.  15  and  x.  12 ; 
to  some  of  which  places  the  Apostle  himself  refers  in  this  place  to  the 
Hebrews.  Thirdly,  that  which  is  said  of  Enoch  (Heb.  xi.  5)  needs  not 
the  book  of  Wisdom  to  confirm  it,  for  the  story  is  clear  in  Genesi.s,  and  in 
the  translation  of  the  Septuagint  (which  St.  Paul  followed)  the  words  are 
alike.  Fourthly,  that  the  powers  which  be  are  ordained  of  God  was  said  by 
the  wisdom  of  God  itself  in  Solomon  (Prov.  viii.  15,  16) ;  and,  fiftlily,  that 
God  is  no  accepter  of  persons  is  taken  out  of  the  words  of  Moses  in  Deuter- 
onomy (x.  17).  And  yet  there  are  that  refer  both  these  maxims  to  the 
book  of  Wisdom,  ^as  if  St.  Paul  had  found  them  nowhere  else." — Cosin, 
Scholast.  Hist.  Can.,  pp.  23,  24. 


566     ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.     [Lett.  IX. 

On  comparing  Heb.  i.  3  with  Wisdom  vii.  26,  there  is 
but  a  single  word  which  they  possess  in  common.  The 
ideas  are  evidently  not  the  same ;  Paul  is  treating  of  a 
person,  and  the  author  of  Wisdom  of  an  attribute.  How 
the  use  of  a  solitary  word  can  establish  a  coincidence  in 
the  passages  themselves  I  am  utterly  unable  to  compre- 
hend. To  make  out  a  quotation  or  a  reference  there  must 
be  either  identity  of  expression  or  identity  of  thought,  and 
where  neither  is  found  no  quotation  exists. 

Romans  xi.  34,  if  quoted  at  all,  is  quoted  from  Isaiah  and 
not  from  Wisdom.  The  prominent  idea  of  the  passage  fre- 
quently occurs  both  in  Job  and  the  Prophet :  Job  xv.  8 ; 
Isaiah  Ix.  13,  etc.  The  analogy  in  Rom.  ix.  21  occurs  in 
Jeremiah  and  Proverbs  as  well  as  the  book  of  Wisdom: 
Jer.  xviii.  6 ;  Prov.  xvi.  4.  Romans  i.  20  is  a  plain  allu- 
sion to  the  nineteenth  Psalm.  The  passage  in  Eph.  vi.  13- 
20  is  much  more  analogous  to  Isaiah  lix.  17  than  to  any- 
thing that  occurs  in  the  book  of  Wisdom.  It  is  evidently, 
however,  an  original  passage.  The  preceding  train  of 
thought  naturally  and  obviously  suggested  this  beautiful 
account  of  Christian  armour ;  it  grew  almost  unavoidably 
out  of  the  metaphor  employed. 

Romans  i.  20  is  in  evident  allusion  to  Psalm  xix.  1,  and 
not,  as  you  pretend,  to  Wisdom  xiii.  4,  5. 

The  connection  between  love  and  obedience  is  one  of  the 
most  familiar  and  common  ideas  in  the  whole  Pentateuch. 
You  will  find  it  in  Deut.  vi.  5,  6;  x.  12,  etc.;  and  it  is 
just  this  connection  which  our  Saviour  insists  on  in  John 
xiv.  15-22. 

Proverbs  xv.  27;  xx.  21  are  much  more  analogous  to 
1  Tim,  vi.  9  than  the  passage  which  you  have  extracted 
from  Ecclesiasticus.  The  train  of  thought  in  the  parable 
of  the  rich  fool  in  the  Gospel  might  have  been  more  readily 
discovered  in  the  Psalms  of  David  than  the  obscure  author- 
ity to  which  you  have  referred  us.  (See  Ps.  Ixix.  10,  seq.) 

^Matthew  xix.  17  is  plainly  a  reference  to  hev.  xviii.  5. 
That  Hebrews  xi.  35  contains  a  reference  to  2  Maccabees 


Lett.  IX.]       IT   IS   NOT   QUOTED    IX   ^'E^V   TESTAMENT.     567 

vi.  18-31,  in  "which  an  account  i.s  given  of  fhe  martyrdom 
of  Eleazar,  is  not  so  certain  as  you  seem  to  apprehend ; 
even  if  it  were  certain,  nothing  is  proved  but  the  historical 
fidelity  of  the  narrative,  which  is  far  from  being  identical 
with  inspiration.^ 

I  have  now  noticed  the  several  instances  in  which  you 
profess  to  have  discovered  traces  of  the  Apocrypha  in  the 
writers  of  the  Xew  Testament;  and  I  think  that  any  candid 
reader  must  be  fully  convinced  that  in  every  case  in  which 
an  allusion  exists  at  all,  it  is  to  the  Jewish  Canon,  and  not 
to  the  corrupt  additions  of  the  Council  of  Trent.  But  still 
nothing  would  be  gained  by  satisfactory  proof  that  Christ 
and  his  Apostles  made  use  of  the  Apocrypha.  Mere  quota- 
tions prove  nothing  but  the  existence  of  the  books  from 
which  they  are  made.  Paul  introduces  lines  from  the 
heathen  poets  in  various  parts  of  his  writings,  and  many 
have  supposed  that  a  striking  analogy  subsists  between  por- 
tions of  the  Gospel  of  John  and  the  speculations  of  Philo. 
Nothing  is  gained,  therefore,  in  behalf  of  the  inspiration 
of  the  Apocryphal  books  by  proving  that  quotations  were 
made  from  them  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles.     This  may 

1  "  "Where  for  the  persons  the  mutter  is  not  so  sure.  For  other  men  are 
of  another  mind,  and  Pauhis  Burgeusis  (whose  additions  have  the  honour, 
even  among  the  Romanists  themselves,  to  be  printed  with  Lyra's  Notes 
and  the  ordinary  gloss  upon  the  Bible)  understands  not  St.  Paul  here  to 
have  spoken  of  Eleazar  and  his  brethren  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees, 
but  of  the  saints  and  martyrs  of  God  that  had  been  tortured  in  his  own 
time,  under  the  New  Testament.  And  for  the  canonical  authority  of  the 
book  (if  any  book  be  here  cited),  whatever  it  was,  the  reference  here  made 
to  it  gave  it  no  more  authority  of  authentic  Scripture  than  the  words  imme- 
diately following  gave  to  another  received  story  among  the  Hebrews,  that 
lOsay  the  Prophet  was  sawn  asunder  to  death.  Whereunto,  though  the 
Apostle  might  have  reference  when  he  said,  The^J  were  stoned,  they  were 
sawn  asunder,  were  tempted,  were  slain  with  the  sword,  they  wandered  about  in 
sheepskins  and  goatskins,  being  destitute,  afflicted,  tormented,  yet  who  ever 
made  all  these  instances  before  St.  Paul  wrote  them  to  be  authentic  and 
canonical  Scripture?  or  who  can  with  reason  deny  (if  Monsieur  Perron's 
rea.son  were  good)  but  that  the  story  of  Esay's  death  ought  to  be  canon- 
ized, as  well  as  the  story  of  Eleazar  and  his  seven  brethren  in  the  Mac- 
cabees, seeing  there  is  as  much  reason  for  the  one  as  there  can  be  given 
for  the  otlier?" — Cosin,  Scholast.  Hist  Can.,  pp.  27,  28^ 


568     ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.     [Lett.  IX. 

have  been  done,  and  yet  the  books  themselves  be  entitled 
to  no  more  reverence  than  Tally's  Offices  or  Seneca's 
Epistles.^ 

In  the  progress  of  this  discussion  your  apparent  want 
of  acquaintance  with  the  Word  of  God  has  struck  me  with 
painful  and  humiliating  force.  The  books  in  your  Bible 
which  you  seem  to  have  studied  the  most  are  those  which 
the  Church  of  God,  in  ancient  and  modern  times,  has 
unanimously  excluded  from  the  sacred  Canon.  The  Law 
and  the  Prophets,  to  which  our  Saviour  so  often  alludes, 
seem  to  be  unknown  to  you ;  and  however  clear  his  refer- 
ences to  these  venerable  documents,  you  can  seize  upon 
nothing  but  Tobit,  Judith  and  Wisdom.  If  you  find  a 
single  phrase  which  can  be  tortured  into  a  remote  approxi- 
mation to  coincidence  of  thought,  you  instantly  leap  for 
joy  like  Archimedes  from  his  bath,  and  expose  yourself 
in  the  ecstasy  of  your  delight.  In  a  paraphrase  of  a  passage 
in  Tobit  you  scent  out  the  golden  rule  of  the  Son  of  God, 
though  that  rule  had  been  revealed  in  the  Law  of  the  Lord 
centuries  before  Tobit  was  born  or  blind.  In  that  same 
precious  compound  of  superstition  and  folly  you  meet  with 
something  about  the  city  of  the  Jews  adorned  with  gold, 
jasper  and  precious  stones,  and  behold!  the  magnificent 
description  of  the  entranced  Apostle  dAvindles  down  into  a 
puerile  plagiarism;  sparks  and  stubble  give  you  the  clue 
to  the  glorious  picture  which  our  Saviour  has  drawn  of  the 
final  condition  of  the  blessed ;  and  Paul  cannot  allude  to 
the  ultimate  triumphs  of  the  kingdom  of  God  without 
being  indebted  to  a  feeble  passage  in  the  book  of  Wisdom. 
There  was  an  eflTort  to  destroy  the  fame  of  the  author  of 
Paradise  Lost  by  robbing  him  of  the  praise  of  original 
invention  in  his  noble  production.  The  immortal  bard  was 
denounced  as  a  plagiary.  Permit  me  to  say  that  you  have 
succeeded  no  better  than  the  wretched  slanderer  of  the 
greatest,    brightest,   most  glorious  name   that   adorns  the 

^  Vide,  on  this  subject  of  quotations,  Rainoldi  Censui'a  Libroruni  Apoc- 
rypliorum,  Pra4ectio»vii.,  vol.  i.,  p.  77. 


Lett.  X.]         APOCRYPHA   AND   THE   JEWISH   CANON.        569 

annals  of  English  literature.  The  case  was  much  more 
plausibly  made  out  that  Milton  borrowed  from  obscurer 
men  than  that  Christ  and  His  Apostles  have  quoted  from 
the  Apocrypha. 


LETTER  X. 

THE  APOCRYPHA  AND   THE   JEWISH    CANON. 

I  HAVE  now  reached  the  third  partition  of  your  letters, 
in  which  you  attempt — whether  successfully  or  not  remains 
yet  to  be  determined — to  refute  my  arguments  against  the 
inspiration  of  the  Apocrypha.  You  have  undertaken  to 
show  that  the  authors  of  these  books  wrote  "as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost/'  and  that  their  productions  are, 
by  consequence,  entitled  to  equal  veneration  and  authority 
with  the  Law,  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms. 

As  your  refutation  begins  with  a  desultory  notice  of  my 
first  argument,  it  will  be  necessary  to  present  the  argument 
itself  distinctly  but  briefly,  and  then  discuss  the  validity 
of  your  reply.  I  assumed  as  true  what  is  capable  of  being 
proved  by  abundant  testimony,  and  what  you  yourself  have 
freely  admitted,  that  these  books  are  not  to  be  found  in  the 
Jewish  Canon.  The  question  naturally  arises  why  they 
were  excluded,  or,  what  is  substantially  the  same,  why  they 
were  not  introduced:  my  answer  was,  Because  they  were 
not  inspired.  That  their  exclusion  from  the  Jewish  Canon 
is  satisfactory  evidence  to  us  that  they  were  destitute  of 
Divine  authority  was  made  to  appear  from  a  very  simple 
and  conclusive  process  of  reasoning.  If  they  were  inspired, 
the  Canon  of  the  Jews  was  evidently  defective,  as  it  failed 
to  present  the  ichole  rule  of  faith  which  God  had  revealed 
to  the  Church.  But  that  no  such  defect  existed  in  their 
sacred  library  was  made  to  appear  from  the  silence  of  our 
Saviour,  who  nowhere  insinuates  that  their  standard  of 
faith  was  incomplete,  and — what  is  still  more  conclusive — 


570     ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISC"USSED.       [Lett.  X. 

from  his  recorded  approbation  of  the  Jewish  Canon  just  as 
it  stood.  Their  Canon,  then,  could  not  possibly  have  been 
defective,  and  therefore  the  Apocrypha  could  not  possibly 
have  been  inspired.  The  leading  proposition  of  ray  argu- 
ment was  of  that  peculiar  species  in  which  the  destruction 
or  removal  of  the  consequent  is,  by  logical  necessity,  the 
destruction  or  removal  of  the  antecedent.  The  only  points, 
therefore,  in  which,  as  the  Schoolmen  would  have  informed 
you,  this  argument  could  have  been  successfully  assailed 
were  in  the  connection  of  the  two  propositions  Mdiich  con- 
stitute the  hypothesis  on  which  it  rests,  or  the  validity  of 
the  process  by  which  the  consequent  was  denied.  To  give 
a  complete  and  satisfactory  refutation  you  would  be  required 
to  show  either  that  the  rejection  of  the  Apocrypha  from  the 
Canon  of  the  Jews,  though  written  by  inspiration  of  God, 
did  not  render  it  defective,  or  that  the  Canon  was  not  sanc- 
tioned as  complete  by  Jesus  Christ  and  his  Apostles. 

As  to  the  first,  you  have  entirely  mistaken  the  point  of 
my  argument  in  supposing  that  it  turned  essentially  upon 
the  proof  of  moral  delinquency  in  the  Jews  in  excluding 
the  Apocrypha  from  their  sacred  library.  It  is  true,  sir, 
that  I  cannot  conceive  how  the  writers  of  those  books  could 
possibly  have  been  Prophets,  and  yet  no- evidence  of  the 
fact  be  made  to  appear  until  centuries  after  they  were  dead. 
If  they  had  been  sent  of  God  as  teachers  to  their  own  gen- 
eration or  to  generations  which  were  then  unborn,  some 
credentials  of  their  Divine  commission  would  seem  to  be 
essential.  They  would  either  have  been  charged  with  the 
power  of  performing  wonders  which  none  could  achieve 
unless  God  were  with  him,  or  their  heavenly  vocation  would 
have  been  attested  by  those  who  were  known  to  be  possessed 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  There  would  surely  have  been  some 
evidence — enough  to  constitute  an  adequate  foundation  of 
faith — that  these  writers  were  messengers  of  God,  declaring 
the  things  which  they  had  received  from  Him.  In  con- 
formity with  the  old  logical  maxim,  de  non  existentibus  et  non 
apparentibus  eadem  est  ratio,  they  might  just  as  well  not  be 


Lett.  X.]         APOCRYPHA   AND   THE   JEWISH   CANON.        571 

inspired  at  all  as  not  be  able  to  authenticate  the  fact.  Un- 
proved inspiration  is  to  the  reader  no  inspiration.  Hence,  I 
did  not  regard  it  as  a  violent  assumption  that  if  these  men 
were  really  inspired  there  must  have  existed  satisfactory 
evidence  of  their  Divine  illumination.  You  yourself  have 
told  us  that  "when  Almighty  God  deigned  to  inspire  the 
works  contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  He  intended  they 
should  be  held  and  believed  to  be  inspired."  Accordingly, 
sir,  the  authors  of  the  Apocrypha  must  have  presented  to 
their  contemporaries  such  attestations  of  their  commission 
from  Heaven  as  to  have  rendered  obedience  imperative  and 
faith  indispensable.  The  Jews,  therefore,  in  rejecting  their 
productions  from  the  sacred  Canon  must  have  resisted  the 
authority  of  God,  and  in  pronouncing  them  not  to  be  in- 
spired must  have  been  guilty  of  a  flagrant  fraud. 

The  charge  of  fraud,  however — which,  of  course,  is  hypo- 
thetically  made — is  only  incidentally  introduced,  and  does 
not  constitute,  as  in  your  reply  you  seem  to  have  suj^posed, 
the  essence  of  the  argument.  It  was  urged  chiefly  for  the 
purpose  of  setting  in  a  strong  light  the  moral  necessity 
whi(;li  to  my  mind  seemed  to  rest  upon  the  Saviour  of 
vindicating  the  authority  of  these  books,  if,  as  you  pretend, 
they  were  really  the  Word  of  God. 

The  real  difficulty  which  the  Romanist  is  required  to 
explain  is,  how  a  document  could  be  perfect  and  complete 
when  one-fifth  of  its  pages  were  actually  omitted.  Every 
book  which  God  had  given  to  the  Jews,  through  the  Divine 
inspiration  of  His  Prophets,  was  entitled  to  be  a  part  of 
their  rule  of  faith;  and  a  complete  collection  of  such  books 
would  constitute  their  Canon  or  entire  rule  of  faith.  Now, 
if  the  Apocrypha  were  inspired  productions,  even  Trent 
being  witness,  they  were  canonical,  and  therefore  their  pres- 
ence was  indispensably  essential  to  the  integrity  of  the 
Canon.  They  were  a  part  of  the  rule  Avhich  God  had 
given,  and  yet  our  Saviour  treats  the  rule  as  'perfect  when 
it  is  miserably  cheated  of  its  fair  proportions — that  is,  upon 
this   new  system  of  Pai)al    mathematics,  some  of  the  parts 


572    AEGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.       [Lett.  X. 

are  made  equal  to  the  whole.  Such  is  the  substance  of  the 
argument  which  you  were  required  to  answer.  Every  step 
was  so  plainly  stated  in  my  original  essay  that  I  do  not  see 
how  you  failed  to  understand  it.  Now,  sir,  what  is  your 
answer?  To  what  you  conceive  to  be  the  leading  proposi- 
tion of  my  argument  you  have  nothing  to  reply  but  that 
the  Jews  might  possibly  have  been  ignorant  of  the  super- 
natural character  of  the  books,  or  that  no  public  tribunal 
existed  possessed  of  legitimate  authority  to  introduce  them 
into  the  Canon.  Your  answer  consists,  in  other  words,  of 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  pitiful  defence  of  the  honesty 
of  the  Jews !  The  ancient  people  of  God  were  guilty  of  no 
fraud  in  rejecting  a  host  of  canonical  books  because  they 
had  not  the  means  of  ascertaining  that  the  books  were  in- 
spired !  They  were  not  to  blame.  God  had  furnished  them 
with  no  satisfactory  proofs  that  the  Apocryphal  authors 
were  His  Prophets,  and  therefore  they  were  not  at  liberty 
to  treat  their  compositions  as  clothed  with  Divine  author- 
ity! Your  answer,  sir,  is  such  a  wonderful  specimen  of 
reasoning  that  you  must  excuse  me  for  presenting  it  and 
my  argument  in  the  form  of  conditional  syllogisms.  My 
argument  was :  If  the  Apocrypha  were  inspired  the  Canon 
of  the  Jews  was  defective ;  but  the  Canon  of  the  Jews  was 
not  defective;  therefore  the  Apocrypha  were  not  inspired. 
Now  the  reader  will  observe  that  the  validity  of  the  argu- 
ment does  not  depend  upon  the  causes  which  induced  the 
Jews  to  exclude  the  Apocrypha,  but  simply  upon  the  fact 
that  they  were  excluded.  The  causes  might  have  been 
ignorance  or  fraud;  as  I  intimated  in  the  original  essay, 
the  fact  is  all  that  is  essential.  Your  answer  is :  If  there 
is  not  satisfactory  evidence  that  a  book  is  inspired,  there  is 
no  fraud  in  excluding  it  from  the  Canon;  there  was  not 
satisfactory  evidence  that  the  Apocrypha  were  inspired; 
therefore  there  was  no  fraud  in  excluding  them  from  the 
Canon.  What  now  is  the  conclusion  of  this  resistless  logic? 
What  end  is  answered  or  what  point  is  gained?  It  follows, 
we  are  told,  for  we  have  to  receive  it  on  authority,  that  my 


Lett.  X.]         APOCRYPHA    AND   THE   JEWISH   CANOX.        573 

"argument  is  valueless  and  crumbles  under  its  own  irresist- 
ible weight."  You  exhibit  the  tact  of  a  practised  logician 
in  evading  the  point  of  my  argument,  and,  like  an  artful 
pupil,  when  the  question  proposed  by  the  master  is  too  hard 
you  ayiHicer  another. 

You  are  aware,  sir,  that  the  very  existence  of  your  cause 
depends  upon  the  truth  of  my  consequent,  and  accordingly 
whatever  of  reasoning  there  is  in  your  essay  is  devoted  to 
the  proofs  by  which  my  minor  jjroposition  was  established. 
You  deny,  in  other  words,  that  Jesus  Christ  or  His  Apostles 
ever  treated  the  Jewish  Canon  as  possessed  of  Divine  author- 
ity, or  even  referred  to  it  at  all.  In  refuting  this  extrava- 
gant assertion  I  must  correct  a  series  of  errors  (into  one  of 
which  you  were  led  by  Du  Pin)  which  tinge  your  whole 
performance,  and  which,  when  once  detected,  leave  in  a 
pitiable  plight  nine-tenths  of  your  second  epistle.  Your 
fundamental  error  consists  in  your  restricted  application  of 
the  term  Canon  to  a  mere  catalogue  or  list.  The  common 
metaphorical  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  xavojv,  as  I  have 
already  had  occasion  to  remark,  is  a  rule  or  measur'c.  In 
this  sense  it  is  used  by  the  classical  writers  of  antiquity,  as 
well  as  by  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  The  subor- 
dinate meanings  which  we  find  attached  to  it  in  Suicer  and 
Du  Fresne  may  be  easily  deduced  from  its  original  applica- 
tion to  a  rule  or  measure.  In  the  early  ecclesiastical  wri- 
ters it  is  sometimes  employed,  as  Eichhorn  properly  ob- 
serves, to  designate  simply  a  book,  and  particularly  a  book 
that  served  in  general  for  the  use  of  the  Church.  The  col- 
lection of  hymns  -which  was  to  be  sung  on  festivals,  and  the 
list  of  members  who  were  connected  with  the  Church,  re- 
ceived alike  this  common  appellation.  Again,  it  was  apj^lied 
to  the  approved  catalogue  of  books  that  might  be  read  in 
the  public  assemblies  of  the  faithful  for  instruction  and 
edification;  and  in  modern  times  it  is  used  to  designate 
those  inspired  writings  which  constitute  the  rule  of  faitli.^ 

^  Eichhom's  Einleitung,  vol.  i.,  cap,  1,  §  15,  pp.  102, 103.  The  text  is 
almost  a  literal  translation  of  the  passage. 


574     ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.       [Lett.  X. 

The  Scriptures  therefore  are  said  to  be  canonical,  not  be- 
cause their  various  books  are  numbered  in  a  list  or  digested 
into  any  particular  order,  but  because  they  are  authoritative 
standards  of  Divine  truth;  and  the  whole  collection  of 
sacred  writings  is  called  by  pre-eminence  the  Canon,  not 
because  it  is  a  collection,  but  because,  in  embodied  form,  it 
presents  the  entire  rule  of  faith.^  It  is  inspiration,  there- 
fore, and  that  alone,  which  entitles  a  book  to  be  regarded  as 
canonical,  because  it  is  inspiration  alone  that  invests  it  with 
authority  to  command  our  faith.  If  there  were  but  one  in- 
spired book  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  that  book  would  be 

^  "  The  infinitely  good  God,  having  favoured  mankind  with  a  revelation 
of  His  will,  has  thereby  obliged  all  those  who  are  blessed  with  the  know- 
ledge thereof  to  regard  it  as  the  unerring  rule  of  their  faith  and  practice. 
Under  this  character,  the  Prophets,  Apostles  and  other  writers  of  tlie 
sacred  books  published  and  delivered  them  to  the  world;  and  on  this 
account  they  were  dignified  above  all  others  with  the  titles  of  the  Canon 
and  the  canonical.  The  word  Canon  is  originally  Greek,  and  did,  in  that 
language,  as  well  as  in  the  Latin  afterward,  commonly  denote  that  which 
ivas  a  rule  or  standard  by  which  other  things  were  to  be  examined  and  judged. 
And  inasmuch  as  the  books  of  inspiration  contained  the  most  remarkable 
rules  and  the  most  important  directions  of  all  others,  the  collection  of 
them  in  time  obtained  the  name  of  the  Canon,  and  each  book  was  called 
canonical." — Jones^  New  and  Full  Method  for  Settling  the  Canon,  etc. ;  pt.  1, 
c.  i.,  p.  17,  vol.  i.  See  also  Lardner's  Supple.,  chap.  1,  |  3,  vol.  v.,  p.  257 
of  Works;  Chalmers'  Evidences  of  Christianity,  Book  iv.,  chap.  1  ;  Owen 
on  Hebrews,  Exercit.  i.,  |  2.  That  the  definition  which  has  been  given  in 
the  text  is  abundantly  confirmed  by  approved  Papal  authorities,  the  fol- 
lowing extracts  will  place  beyond  question.  Ferus  says :  Scriptura  dicitur 
canonica,  id  est,  regularis,  quia  a  Deo  nobis  data  vita?  et  veritatis  regula, 
qua  omnia  probamus  et  juxta  quam  vivamus.  Jacobus  Andradius  says : 
Minime  sibi  displicere  eorum  sententiam,  qui  canonicos  ideo  appellari 
dicunt  [Scripturse]  libros  quia  pietatis  et  fidei  et  religionis  Canonem,  hoc 
est,  regulam  atque  normam  e  ccelis  aummo  Dei  beneficio  ad  nos  delatam 
continent  amplissimam.  Nam  cum  omnipotentis  Dei  incorruptissima  et 
integerrima  voluntas  humanarum  esse  debat  actionum  et  voluntatum 
norma :  merito  sana  a  canone  et  regula  nomeu  accipere  ii  codices  debuere, 
quibus  Divina  raysteria  atque  voluntas  comprehensa.  And  Bellarniine, 
whom  Rainold  styles  the  Prince  of  Jesuits,  affirms:  Kemnitium  recte 
deduxisse  ex  Augustino,  libros  sacros  Scriptune  ideo  dictos  canonicns, 
quod  sint  instar  regulse.  These  extracts  may  be  found  in  Bainol.  Censura, 
Prajlect.  iv.,  vol.  i.,  p.  61. 


Lett.  X.]         APOCRYPHA   AND   THE   JEWISH   CANON.        575 

the  Canon,  though  it  would  be  perfectly  absurd  to  talk  of 
a  catalogue  or  list  of  one  book.  Accordingly,  the  distin- 
guished German  critic  to  whom  I  have  already  referred 
treats  canonical  and  inspired  as  synonymous  terms.  The 
Jews,  it  is  important  to  state,  did  not  appl^  the  term  Canon 
to  the  collection  of  their  sacred  writings.  They  described 
the  books  themselves  in  terms  expressive  of  their  Divine 
origin,  arranged  them  in  convenient  general  divisions,  but 
did  not  confine  themselves  to  any  one  specific  enumeration. 
The  books  were  computed  indiscriminately,  so  as  to  suit  the 
number  of  letters  either  in  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  alphabets. 
The  Jews  knew  nothing  of  the  magic  of  a  list.  Philo  and 
Josephus,  for  instance,  never  speak  of  the  "Canon,"  but  of 
the  "compositions  of  their  prophets,"  their  "sacred  books," 
"the  oracles  of  God,"  using  such  terms  as  denoted  inspira- 
tion. This  was  the  only  canonical  authority  of  which  they 
dreamed.  This  it  was  that  distinguished  their  books  from 
the  works  of  the  Gentiles,  and  exalted  their  faith  above  the 
deductions  of  a  fallible  philosophy.  If,  then,  canonical  and 
inspired,  as  applied  to  the  Scriptures,  are  synonymous  terms, 
to  insert  a  book  in  the  Canon  is  simply  to  be  convinced  of 
its  Divine  inspiration.  The  very  evidence  which  J)roves  it 
to  come  from  God  makes  it  canonical.  In  other  words,  the 
])roofs  of  inspiration  and  the  proofs  of  canonical  authority 
are  one  and  the  same  thing.  Hence,  instead  of  requiring 
some  great  and  imposing  assembly,  like  the  cheneseth  haga- 
dolah  of  the  Jews  or  your  own  favourite  Council  of  Trent, 
to  settle  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  it  is  a  work  which  every 
one  must  achieve  for  himself.  The  external  proofs  of  in- 
spiration which  consist  in  the  signs  of  an  Apostle  or  a  Pro- 
phet— found  either  in  the  writer  himself,  or  some  one  com- 
missioned to  vouch  for  his  production — are  as  easy  and  ol>- 
vious  as  the  external  proof  that  any  body  of  men  are  supcr- 
naturally  guarded  from  error.' 

*  "The  inspiration  of  a  writer,"  says  Jahn,  "can  only  be  proved  by  Di- 
vine testimony.  Nevertheless,  nothing  more  can  be  required  than  that  a 
man  who  has  proved  his  Divine  miracles  or  prophecies  should  assert  that 


576     ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.       [Lett.  X. 

The  contemporaries  of  Moses  would  know,  from  the 
miraculous  credentials  by  which  his  commission  was  sus- 
tained, that  his  compositions  were  the  supernatural  dictates 
of  God.  They  would  consequently  be  a  canon  to  his  coun- 
trymen. As  other  Prophets  successively  arose,  their  instruc- 
tions, supported  by  similar  credentials,  would  receive  a  simi- 
lar distinction.  The  Canon  in  this  way  would  be  gradually 
enlarged.  Writers  might  be  found  who  gave  no  external 
proofs  themselves  that  they  wrote  as  they  were  moved  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  yet  their  writings  might  be  authenti- 
cated by  those  who  were  unquestionably  possessed  of  the 
prophetic  spirit,  and  on  this  account  these  compositions 
would  also  be  added  to  the  existing  Canon.  We  read  in 
the  Scriptures  that  "  all  Israel,  from  Dan  even  to  Beer- 
sheba,  knew  that  Samuel  was  established  to  be  a  Prophet 
of  the  Lord."  (1  Sam.  iv.  20.)  How  did  they  know  it? 
There  was  no  great  synagogue  to  publish  the  fact  or  authen- 
ticate its  truth.  There  was  no  great  council  to  settle  the 
matter  by  an  infallible  canon,  but  there  was  something 
better  and  higher :  "  The  Lord  was  with  him,"  and  attested 
by  miracles  the  supernatural  character  of  His  servant.  Now, 
precisely  in  the  same  way  could  the  claims  of  every  other 
Prophet  be  established,  and  the  evidences  of  Divine  inspi- 
ration be  speedily  and  extensively  diffused.  The  sacred 
books  circulated  among  the  people,  as  well  as  preserved  in 
the  Library  of  the  Temple^  by  the  priests,  would  have 
every  moral  protection  from  corruption,  forgery  or  frauds. 
The  innovations  of  the  priests  would  be  speedily  detected 
by  the  people,  and  the  changes  of  the  people  just  as  readily 
exposed  by  the  priests.  In  the  multitude  of  copies,  as  in 
the  book  or  books  in  question  are  free  from  error." — Introduct.  0.  T.,  cap. 
ii.,  pp.  34,  35,  Turner's  Translation. 

The  reader  will  find  this  subject  very  clearly  presented  in  Sermon  xxiii. 
of  Van  Mildert's  Boyle  Lectures. 

^  The  existence  of  such  a  Temple  Library  will  hardly  be  disputed  by 
any  sober  critic.  Traces  of  it  may  be  found  before  the  captivity  in  Deut. 
xxxi.  26 ;  Joshua  xxiv.  26  ;  1  Samuel  x.  25.  After  the  captivity  the  evi- 
dence is  complete :  Josephus,  Antiq.,  L.  iii.,  c.  i.,  §  7  ;  L.  v.,  c.  i.,  ?  17 ; 
De  Bello.  Jud.,  L.  vii.,  c.  v.,  §  5.    See  also  Eichhorn,  Einleit.,  vol.  i.,  §  3. 


Lett.  X.]         APOCRYPHA    AND   THE   JEWISH    CAXOX.        577 

the  mtiltitude  of  counsellors,  there  M'ould  be  safety.^  To 
this  must  be  added  the  sleepless  providence  of  God,  which 
would  preserve  His  AYord,  which  He  hath  exalted  above 
every  other  manifestation  of  His  name,  amid  all  the  assaults 
of  its  enemies,  and  transmit  it  to  future  generations  unim- 
paired by  the  fires  of  persecution,  as  the  burning  bush  was 
protected  from  the  flame.^ 

It  is  a  favourite  scheme  of  the  Papists  to  represent  the 
settling  of  the  Canon  as  a  work  of  gigantic  toil  and  formid- 
able mystery.  It  evidently,  however,  reduces  itself  to  a. 
simple  question  of  fact :  What  books  were  written  by  men 
whose  claims  to  inspiration  were  either  directly  or  remotely 
established  by  miracles  ?  It  is  a  question,  therefore,  of  no 
more  difficulty  than  the  authenticity  of  the  sacred  books. 
To  illustrate  the  matter  in  the  case  of  the  New  Testament : 
the  churches  that  received  the  Epistles  from  Paul  could 
have  had  no  doubts  of  their  canonical  authority,  because 
they  kneM'  that  the  Apostle  was  supernaturally  inspired  as 
a  teacher  of  the  faith.  He  produced  in  abundance  the 
signs  of  an  Apostle.  So  also  the  writings  of  the  other 
Apostles  would  be  recognized  by  their  contemporary  brethren 
as  the  Word  of  the  Lord.  The  books  actually  Avritten  by 
the  Ajiostlcs  or  approved  by  their  sanction  would  be  known 
by  living  witnesses  of  the  fact.  The  historical  proofs  of 
this  fact — that  is,  the  testimony  of  credible  witnesses — would 
be  sufficient  in  all  future  time  to  attest  the  inspiration  of 
any  given  work.  If  a  man,  for  example,  in  the  third  cen- 
tury is  doubtful  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  all  that  is 
necessary  to  settle  his  mind  is  to  convince  him  that  Paul 
actually  wrote  it.  This  being  done,  its  inspiration  follows 
as  a  matter  of  course.  If  a  book,  on  the  other  hand,  Avhich 
pretended  to  be  inspired  could  produce  no  adequate  proofs  of 

1  This  subject  is  ably  discussed  by  Abbadie  in  a  short  compass.     See 
Clirist.  Relig.,  vol.  i.,  §  3,  c.  6. 

^  Upon  the  manner  in  which  the  Canon  was  gradually  formed,  and  for 
a  full  and  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  doubts  wliich  existed  in  the 
primitive  Church  in  reference  to  some  of  the  l)ooks  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, see  Lancaster's  Bampton  Lectures. 
Vol.  hi.— 37 


578      ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED,        [Lett.  X. 

apostolic  origin  or  apostolic  sanction,  its  claims  Avould  have 
to  be  rejected,  unless  its  author  could  exhibit  in  his  own 
person  the  signs  of  a  heavenly  messenger.  The  congrega- 
tions in  possession  of  inspired  records  were  accustomed,  as 
we  gather  from  the  Apostles  themselves,  to  transmit  their 
treasures  to  the  rest  of  their  brethren,  so  that  in  process  of 
time  this  free  circulation  of  the  sacred  books  would  put 
them  in  the  hands  of  all  the  portions  of  the  Church ;  and  as 
each  Church  became  satisfied  of  their  apostolic  origin,  it 
received  them  likewise  as  canonical  and  Divine,  and  in  this 
way  a  common  Canon  was  gradually  settled.  The  idea 
that  a  council  or  any  mere  ecclesiastical  body  could  settle 
the  Canon  is  perfectly  preposterous.  To  settle  the  Canon 
is  to  settle  the  inspiration  of  the  sacred  books ;  to  settle  the 
inspiration  of  the  sacred  books  is  to  prove  that  they  were 
written  by  Divine  Prophets;  and  to  prove  this  fact  is  to 
prove  either  that  the  Prophets  themselves  established  their 
pretensions  by  miraculous  achievements,  or  were  sanctioned 
by  those  who  were  already  in  possession  of  supernatural 
credentials.  Now,  what  can  a  council  do  in  a  matter  of 
this  sort  but  give  the  testimony  of  the  men  who  compose 
it?  Its  authority  as  a  council  is  nothing.  It  may  be  en- 
titled to  deference  and  respect  as  embodying  the  testimony 
of  credible  witnesses.  Everything,  however,  will  depend 
upon  the  honesty,  accuracy,  fidelity  and  opportunities  of 
the  individual  members  who  constitute  the  synod. 

Having  now  shown  what  a  canon  is,  how  a  book  is  deter- 
mined to  be  canonical,  and  how  the  Canon  was  gradually 
collected,  little  need  be  said  in  refutation  of  your  extrava- 
gant account  of  the  origin  and  settlement  of  the  Canon  of 
the  Jews. 

I  could  have  predicted  beforehand,  from  your  known 
partiality  for  synods  and  councils,  that  you  would  liave 
found  in 'the  great  synagogue  of  Ezra  an  adequate  tribunal 
for  adjusting  the  rule  of  faith.  You  would  never,  at  least, 
have  rested  in  your  inquiries  until  you  had  met  with  some 
body  of  men  in  whose  decision  your  Papal  proclivity  to  con- 


Lett.  X.]         APOCRYPHA    AND   THE   JEWISH    CANON.        579 

fide  in  the  authority  of  man  niiglit  be  humoured  or  indulged. 
As  to  the  wolf  in  the  fable  no  possible  combination  of  let- 
ters could  be  made  to  s})cll  anything  luit  agnus,  so  your 
inherent  love  for  a  Council  would  lead  you  to  embrace  any 
floating  tradition  by  which  you  could  construct  a  plausible 
story  that  such  a  tribunal  had  settled  the  Canon  of  the  Jews. 
But,  sir,  where  is  the  proof  that  this  great  synagogue  ever 
existed  ?  The  fii-st  notice  which  we  have  of  it  is  contained 
in  the  Talmud,  a  book  which  began  about  five  hundred 
years  after  this  synagogue  is  said  to  have  perished.  You 
are  more  modest,  however,  than  some  of  your  predecessors. 
Genebrard,  not  content,  like  yourself,  with  a  single  council, 
has  fabricated  two  other  synods  to  complete  the  work  which 
Ezra  had  begun.*  By  one  of  these  imaginary  bodies  the 
books  of  Tobias  and  Ecclesiasticus  were  added  to  the  Canon, 
and  by  the  other  the  remaining  works  of  the  Ai)ocrypha. 
The  great  synagogue  which  you  have  endorsed  was  a  reg- 
ular ecclesiastical  body,  in  which  might  be  discerned,  to  use 
your  own  words,  "  a  general  council  of  the  Church  in  the 
old  law,  claiming  and  exercising  by  the  authority  of  God 
the  power  of  teaching  the  faithful  what  were  the  inspired 
books."  Beyond  the  traditions  of  the  Rabbins,  what  evi- 
dence are  you  able  to  produce  that  a  body  so  evidently  extra- 
ordinary as  this  is  reported  to  have  been  is  anything  more 
than  a  fiction  ?  You  are  probably  aware,  sir,  that  Jahn  pro- 
nounces the  story  to  be  a  fable,  in  which  he  is  confirmed  by 
what  in  a  question  of  literary  criticism  is  still  higher  author- 
ity,  the   opinion   of  Eichhorn.^     We  are  not  wanting  in 

'  Hottinger,  Thesaur.  Phil.,  Lib.  i.,  c.  i.,  quest.  1,  p.  110. 

*  "The  Jews  attribute  the  establishment  of  the  Canon  to  what  they  call 
the  Great  iSyiiagogne,  Avhich  during  more  than  two  hundred  years,  from 
Zerubbabel  down  to  Simon  the  Just,  wa.s  composed  of  the  prophets  and  the 
most  eminent  men  of  the  nation.  But  the  whole  story  respecting  this 
synagogue,  which  first  occurs  in  the  Talmud,  is  utterly  unworthy  of  credit. 
It  is  evidently  a  fictitious  representation  of  the  historic  truth  that  the 
men  who  are  said  to  have  constituted  the  synagogue  were  chiefly  instru- 
mental in  the  new  regulation  of  the  State,  and  in  the  constitution  of  the 
Jewish  Church,  and  consequently  in  the  collecting  and  fixing  the  holy 


580     AEGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.        [Lktt.  X. 

Jewish  writers  from  the  period  of  Ezra  to  the  advent  of 
Christ  and  the  compilation  of  the  Tahuud,  and  it  is  certainly 
astonishing,  if  the  synagogue  had  been  a  historical  entity 
of  so  much  importance  as  the  traditions  of  the  Rabbins 
ascribe  to  it,  that  some  authentic  notice  has  not  been  taken 
of  its  history,  organization  and  proceedings.  How,  sir,  will 
you  explain  this  wonderful  phenomenon?  Then,  again,  the 
one  hundred  and  twenty  men  who  composed  this  assembly 
are  said  all  to  have  flourished  at  the  same  time,  and  so 
Daniel  and  Simon  the  Just  are  made  contemporaries,  although 
there  could  have  been,  according  to  Prideaux,  little  less  than 
two  hundred  and  fifty  years  between  them.  The  whole  story 
is  so  ridiculous  and  absurd  as  to  carry  the  stamp  of  talse- 
hood  upon  its  face.  It  no  doubt  arose  from  the  fact  that 
Ezra  was  assisted  in  restoring  the  constitution  of  the  Jewish 
State,  and  publishing  a  correct  edition  of  the  Scriptures  of 
the  Canon  as  already  existing,  by  the  "  principal  elders,  who 
lived  in  a  continual  succession  from  the  first  return  of  the 
Jews  after  the  Babylonish  captivity  to  the  death  of  Simon 
the  Just."  ^  That  Ezra  could  not  have  settled  the  Canon 
of  Scripture  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  most  of  .the  books 
already  existed  and  were  known  to  be  the  compositions  of 
Prophets.  There  is  no  evidence  that  he  furnished  addi- 
tional proof  of  the  inspiration  of  Moses,  David  or  Isaiah, 
and  yet  this  he  must  have  done  if  he  made  them  canonical.^ 
books  upon  wliicli  this  constitution  was  established." — Jahn's  Introd.,  Tur- 
ner's Trans.,  p.  45. 

See  also  Eichhorn's  Einleit.,  vol.  i.,  §  5.  An  account  of  this  great  syna- 
gogue may  be  found  in  Bartolocci,  Bibliotheca  Eabbinica,  vol.  iv.,p.  2,  on 
the  word  "  Cheneseth  Hagadolah  ;"  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  c.  x.,  xi. ;  Leusden, 
Philol.  Heb.,  Dissert,  ix.,  §  4,  p.  73. 

•  Prideaux,  Part  I.,  book  iv.,  p.  265.  In  addition  to  the  authority  of 
Jahn,  see  also  Knapp's  Lectures,  vol.  i.,  art.  i.,  §  4,  p.  81. 

-'  "  But  the  great  work  of  Ezra  was  his  collecting  together  and  setting 
forth  a  correct  edition  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  he  laboured  much  in, 
and  went  a  great  way  in  the  perfecting  of  it.  This  both  Christians  and 
Jews  gave  him  the  honour  of,  and  many  of  the  ancient  Fathers  attribute 
more  to  him  in  this  particular  than  the  Jews  themselves ;  for  they  hold 
that  all  the  Scriptures  were  lost  and  destroyed  in  the  Babylonish  captivity, 
and  that  Ezra  restored  them  all  again  by  Divine  inspiration.     Thus  saitli 


Lett.  X.]         APOCRYPHA    AND   THE    JEWISH    CANON.        581 

T]ie  truth  is,  he  did  nothing-  more  in  reference  to  existing 
books  than  discharge  the  duties  of  a  critical  editor.  His 
labours  were  precisely  of  tlie  same  kind  as  those  of  Gries- 
bach,  Knapp  and  Mill.  He  might  have  been  guided  by 
inspiration  in  executing  these  functions,  for  he  was  con- 
fessedly an  inspired  man,  but  the  ancient  books  which  he 
published  were  just  as  canonical  before  he  was  born  as  they 
were  after  he  was  dead. 

'^AMiat  authority,"  you  state  with  ineffable  simplicity, 
"  they  [the  Jews]  thought  necessary  and  sufficient  to  amend 
the  Canon  I  have  never  met  laid  down  by  any  of  them. 
Nor  do  they  treat  of  the  evidence  sufficient  to  establish  the 
inspiration  of  a  book."  The  authority,  it  is  plain,  is  the 
evidence  of  inspiration,  and  that,  in  its  external  division,  is 
the  exhibition  of  miraculous  credentials.  Whoever  claimed 
to  be  inspired,  and  sustained  his  pretensions  by  signs  and 
A\onders  which  none  could  do  unless  God  were  with  him, 
was  in  fact  inspired,  and  whatever  he  wrote  under  the  in- 
fluence of  inspiration  belonged  of  necessity  to  the  Canon. ^ 

Irenreus,  and  thus  say  Tertullian,  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Basil  and  others. 
But  they  had  no  other  foundation  for  it  than  that  fabulous  relation  which 
we  have  of  it  in  the  14th  chapter  of  the  second  Apocryphal  book  of 
Esdras — a  book  too  absurd  for  the  Eomanists  themselves  to  receive  into 
their  Canon." — Prideaux,  Part  I.,  book  iv.,  p.  270. 

1  "In  the  case  of  a  person  claiming  to  be  commissioned  witli  a  message 
from  God,  the  only  proof  which  ought  to  be  admitted  is  miraculous  attest- 
ation of  some  sort.  It  should  be  required  that  either  the  person  himself 
should  work  a  miracle,  or  that  a  miracle  should  be  so  wrought  in  comicc- 
tion  with  his  ministry  as  to  remove  all  doubt  of  its  reference  to  him  and 
his  message.  The  miracle,  in  these  cases,  is,  in  feet,  a  specimen  of  that 
violation  of  the  ordinary  course  of  nature  which  the  person  inspired  is 
asserting  to  have  taken  place  in  his  appointment  and  ministry;  and  cor- 
responds to  the  exhibition  of  specimens  and  experiments  which  we  should 
require  of  a  geologist,  mineralogist  or  chemist  if  he  asserted  his  discovery 
of  any  natural  phenomena,  especially  of  any  at  variance  with  received 
theories." — Hinds  on  Inspiration,  pp.  9,  10.  "The  Bible  is  said  to  be 
inspired  in  no  other  sense  than  the  government  of  the  Israelites  miglit 
be  termed  inspired  ;  that  is,  the  persons  who  wrote  the  Bible,  and  those 
wlio  were  appointed  to  govern  God's  people  of  old,  were  divinely  com- 
missioned and  miraculously  qualified,  as  far  as  was  needful,  for  their  re- 
spective employments.     This  being  so,  the  inspiration  of  Scripture  Ls  not, 


582   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.         [Lett.  X. 

Your  distinction,  accordingly,  between  not  inserting  a 
book  really  inspired  in  a  canon,  and  rejecting  it  from  a 
canon  through  defect  of  proof  or  want  of  authority,  is 
wholly  gratuitous  and  absurd.  As  the  only  way  in  Avhich 
a  book  can  be  inserted  into  the  Canon  is  to  acknowledge 
its  Divine  authority  as  a  rule  of  faith — that  is,  to  receive  it 
as  inspired — so  the  only  way  of  rejecting  it  is  to  deny  or 
not  be  convinced  of  its  inspiration.  A  book  cannot  be  re- 
jected after  its  inspiration  is  established ;  Ave  may  refuse  to 
obey  its  instructions,  but  if  we  know  it  to  be  inspired,  it 
must  be  regarded  as  speaking  with  authority.  Whether  we 
hear  or  whether  we  forbear,  it  still  is  entitled  to  be  con- 
sidered as  a  rule.  Those  that  would  not  submit  to  the 
government  of  Christ  were  still  treated  and  punished  as  his 
subjects.  His  right  of  dominion  was  not  at  all  impaired  by 
their  disobedience. 

You  are  quite  mistaken,  therefore,  in  su]>posing  that  the 
charge  of  rejecting  the  Apocrypha  from  the  Canon  cannot 
be  sustained  against  the  Jews,  unless  they  had  proof  that 
these  books  were  inspired,  and  possessed  a  tribunal  whose 
function  it  was  to  insert  them  into  the  Canon.  They  were 
rejected  from  the  Canon,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case, 
if  they  were  not  believed  to  be  inspired.^ 

by  the  strict  rule  of  division,  opposed  to  the  inspiration  of  persons,  but 
forms  one  branch  of  that  multifarious  ministry  in  which  those  persons 

were  engaged The  proof  requisite  for  establishing  the  Divine 

authority  of  any  writings,  when,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Bible,  the  testimonial 
miracles  of  the  authors  can  be  no  longer  witnessed,  is  either — 1,  That  some 
miracle  be  implied  in  the  authorship;  or,  2,  That  there  be  satisfactory 
testimony  that  the  writers  were  persons  who  performed  miracles;  or,  3, 
That  there  be  satisfactory  testimony  that  the  writings  were  recognized  as 
works  of  inspiration  by  persons  who  must  have  been  assured  of  this  on 
the  evidence  of  miracles." — Ibid.,  p.  27,  28. 

^  I  find  that  Kainold  in  his  admirable  work  has  taken  the  same  view. 
In  rebutting  the  very  distinction  of  A.  P.  F.,  which,  in  the  days  of  this 
great  scholar,  was  urged  by  Canus  and  Sixtus  Sonensis,  he  thus  proceeds : 
"Concidit  ergo  alterum  exceptionis  Sixti  membrum :  nunc  ad  altenini, 
quod  ita  habet :  Etsi  non  recepcrunt  in  can.onem,  (amen  non  rejecerunt ; 
alind  enim  non  recipere,  aliud  rejiccre.  At  idem  plane  est  ad  id  de  quo 
agimus,  non  accipere  et  rejicere.     Nam  mutemus  verba  prioris  ratiocina- 


Lett.  X.]         APOCRYPHA    AND   THE   JEWISH   CANON.        583 

All  your  blunders  upon  this  subject  have  arisen  from  the 
ambiguity  of  the  Avord  Canon,  and  from  the  preposterous 
idea  that  there  is  something  peculiarly  mysterious  and  pro- 
found in  making  a  collection  of  sacred  works.  It  seems 
never  to  have  entered  your  head  that  there  is  nothing  more 
wonderful  or  abstruse  in  gathering  together  the  accredited 
writings  of  the  Holy  Ghost  than  in  making  a  collection  of 
the  acknowledged  publications  of  a  human  author.  The 
difficulty  of  the  subject  is  not  in  the  collection,  but  in  the 
])roof  that  the  separate  pieces,  in  either  case,  are  genuine. 
Inspiration  is  the  mark  of  a  genuine  work  of  the  Spirit, 
and  miracles  are  the  infallible  marks  of  inspiration. 

Those  preliminary  suggestions  in  reference  to  the  nature 
and  authority  of  the  Canon  furnish  the  keys  to  a  satisfactory 
solution  of  all  your  difficulties.  Your  refutation  of  the 
minor  proposition  of  my  argument  will  be  found  so  essen- 
tially wanting  in  every  element  of  strength  that  it  may 
safely  be  pronounced  as  worthless  as  you  have  represented 
my  own  to  be,  and  will  assuredly  "  crumble  under  its  own 
irresistible  weight." 

tionis  nostrce,  et  dicamus:  Si  quce  unquam  Ecclesia  verum  et  cerium  testimo- 
nium dare  potuit  de  Libris  canonicis  Saerce  Scriptura,  de  Libris  certe  Veieris 
Teslamenti  vetus  Ecclesia  Judaica  potuit.  At  ea  has,  qui  sunt  in  controversia, 
libros  in  canonem  nan  recipit.  Ergo  recipiendi  non  sunt.  Quid  jam  lucra- 
tus  est  Canus?  Nobis  satis  probasse  non  esse  recipiendos,  quod  enim 
Christus  apud  Matthseum  dicit,  qui  vos  recipit,  me  recipit,  id  apud  Lucam 
sic  effertur,  qui  vos  rejicit,  me  rejicit,  et  alibi  qui  non  colligil  mecum  spargit : 
hie  non  recipi  est  rejici,  ut  in  virtutis  via  regreditur,  quicunque  non  pro- 
greditur,  et  in  Apocalypsi,  foris  erunt  canes,  et  venefici,  et  scortatores,  et 
homicidce,  et  idolatrce,  et  quisquis  amat,  et  committit  mendacium.  Quid  his 
proderit  non  rejici,  si  non  recipiantur  ?  Verum  est  ista  distinctio  adhuc 
plenius  refutetur,  ego  non  modo  non  receptos  hos  libros,  sed  et  rejectos 
fuisse  docebo.  Quid  est  enim  rejicere,  nisi  negare  esse  canonicos?  Quid 
non  recipere,  quam  (ut  levius  in  Cani  gratiara  interpreter)  dubitare  num 
sint  recipiendi?" — Cens.  Lib.  Apoc,  Prselect.  ix.,vol.  i.,  p.  86. 


584   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA  DISCUSSED.       [Lett.  XL 

LETTER    XL 

SILENCE    OF    CHRIST    AS    TO    THE    APOCRYPHA. 

That  the  Jewish  Canon  was  not  defective  was  made  to 
appear  from  the  silence  of  Christ  in  reference  to  any  omis- 
sion impairing  its  integrity,  from  His  recorded  conversa- 
tions in  which  He  evidently  sanctioned  it  as  complete,  and 
from  the  instructions  of  His  Apostles  who  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Your  reply  to  these  several  distinct  proofs  of  my  mi- 
nor proposition  I  shall  now  examine  in  the  order  which 
seems  to  me  to  be  most  convenient  for  fully  presenting  the 
subject. 

First,  then,  you  deny  that  our  Saviour  or  His  Apostles 
ever  referred  to  the  Canon  of  the  Jews  at  all,  and  in  order 
to  give  some  semblance  of  truth  to  this  gross  and  palpable 
error,  you  avail  yourself  of  the  ambiguity  of  a  term,  and 
endeavour  to  "imbosk  in  the  dark,  bushy  and  tangled  forest" 
of  verbal  technicalities.  It  is  freely  conceded  that  our  Sa- 
viour nowhere  enumerates,  by  their  specific  names  or  titles, 
all  the  books  which  compose  the  Jewish  Scriptures.  He 
never  pretended,  so  far  as  it  appears  from  the  sacred  records, 
to  give  an  accurate  list  or  formal  catalogue  of  all  the  in- 
spired writings  which  the  Jews  received  as  the  infallible 
standard  of  supernatural  truth.  But  what  is  this  to  the 
point?  Even  if  we  take  canon  in  .your  own  arbitrary 
sense  of  it,  you  have  grossly  failed  to  sustain  your  mon- 
strous hypothesis.  It  is  certainly  one  thing  to  refer  to  a 
canon,  and  quite  a  different  thing  to  enumerate  all  the  books 
which  compose  it.  Such  general  terms  as  the  WorT:s  of 
Homer,  the  Works  of  Plato  or  the  Works  of  Cicero  evi- 
dently embrace  a  complete  collection  of  their  various  per- 
formances ;  and  to  refer  to  them  under  these  titles  is  to  refer 
to  the  catalogue  or  list  of  their  literary  labours.  If  the 
question  were    asked,   What  were    the   works  of   Ilouier? 


Lett.  XI.]     SILENCE    OF   CHRIST   AS   TO    APOCRYPHA.      585 

could  it  be  answered  in  any  other  way  than  by  enumerating 
the  specific  books  of  which  he  was  supposed  to  be  the 
author  ? 

Now,  if  the  Jews  applied  any  general  and  comprehensive 
titles  to  the  whole  body  of  their  sacred  writings,  and  if  our 
Saviour  referred  to  these  documents  under  those  titles,  he 
referred  unquestionably  to  the  catalogue  or  list  of  their  Di- 
vine compositions ;  that  is,  in  your  own  sense,  he  referred 
unquestionably  to  the  Canon  of  his  countrymen.  Have 
you  yet  to  learn,  sir,  that  the  phrases  "Scriptures,"  "Holy 
Scriptures,"  "Sacred  Books,"  and  such  like  expressions, 
^\•hich  are  continually  occurring  in  Philo  and  Josephus, 
Avere  the  common  and  familiar  designations  of  those  works 
which  were  believed  to  have  proceeded  from  the  Spirit  of 
God?^  Have  you  further  to  learn  that  the  division  of 
their  sacred  books  into  three,  parts,  the  Law,  the  Prophets 
and  the  rest  of  the  books,  was  an  ancient  classification?^ 
Certainly,  sir,  there  is  as  much  evidence  of  these  facts  as 
of  the  existence  of  an  infallible  "council  of  the  Churcli  in 
the  old  law  "  in  the  days  of  Ezra.  If,  now,  our  Saviour 
and  His  Apostles  ever  referred  to  the  inspired  documents 
of  the  Jewish  faith  under  the  general  and  comprehensive 
title  of  the  "Scriptures,"  or  under  the  threefold  division  of 
their  books  which  ancient  usage  had  sanctioned,  they  re- 
ferred, beyond  all  question,  to  their  Canon,  in  the  sense  of 
a  catalogue  or  list  of  their  Divine  compositions.  That  they 
did  refer,  however,  to  the  Scriptures  generally,  you  yourself 
admit.  How,  then,  can  you  deny  the  obvious  conclusion, 
without  maintaining  that  the  general  does  not  include  the 
particulars,  the  whole  is  not  composed  of  its  parts?     Homer 

»  Hottiiiger,  Thesaur.  Phil.,  lib.  i.,  c.  2,  ^  3 ;  Lensden,  Phil.  Heb.,  Dis- 
sert, i.,  ?  1 ;  Eichhorn,  Einleit.,  c.  i.,  |  0;  Jahn,  Introd.,  Prelim.  Observ., 

U- 

''  That  this  was  an  ancient  division  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact  that 
it  appears  to  have  been  of  long  standing  in  the  time  of  .Ie.sus  tlie  .son  of 
Sirach.  We  find  it  in  his  Prologue.  See  Leusdcn,  Phil.  Ileb.,  Dissert,  ii., 
I  1 ;  Ilottinger,  Thesaur.  Phil.,  lib.  ii.,  c.  i.,  ?  1 ;  Eichhorn,  Einleit.,  c.  i., 
'i  6 ;  Jahn,  j.t.  1.,  \  103. 


586    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.      [Lett.  XL 

sometimes  nodded;  and  you,  too,  in  a  moment  of  unlucky 
forgetfulness,  have  virtually  acknowledged  that  there  can  be 
a  reference  to  a  canon  when  the  name  itself  is  not  men- 
tioned, and  when  there  is  no  complete  enumeration  of  the 
specific  books  which  constitute  the  list.  You  have  appealed 
to  Flavius  Josephus  for  the  purpose  of  showing  "  what  were 
the  ideas  of  the  Jews "  on  the  subject  of  their  national 
Canon.  What  evidence  have  you,  sir,  that  will  not  as 
clearly  apply  to  the  case  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles,  that 
Josephus,  in  the  celebrated  passage  to  which  you  allude, 
refers  to  the  Canon,  since  he  only  mentions  the  general 
division  of  the  sacred  books  into  three  leading  parts,  and 
mentions  the  number,  not  the  names,  of  the  works  that  be- 
long to  each  division?^  The  same  divisions  are  mentioned 
by  our  Saviour  (Luke  xxiv.  44) :  "  All  things  must  be  ful- 
filled which  are  written  in  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  in  the 
Prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms,  concerning  me,"  and  yet  you 
deny  that  in  this  passage  of  Luke,  or  in  any  other  passage 
of  the  New  Testament,  there  is  any  reference  at  all  to  the 
Canon  of  the  Jews !  I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand  how  a 
reference  to  a  general  classification  when  found  in  Josephus 
should  be  a  reference  to  the  Canon,  but  when  found  in  the 
mouth  of  our  Saviour  should  be  entirely  different.  It  is 
vain  to  allege  that  because  Josephus  mentions  the  number 
of  books  in  each  department   this  is  equivalent  to  the  men- 

^  This  passage  occurs  in  Joseplius  contra  Ap.,  lib,  i.,  §  8.  It  may  be  thus 
rendered :  "  For  we  have  not  innumerable  books  which  contradict  each 
other;  but  only  twenty-two,  which  comprise  the  history  of  all  times  past, 
and  are  justly  held  to  be  Divine.  Five  of  these  books  proceed  from 
Moses ;  they  contain  laws  and  accounts  of  the  origin  of  men,  and  extend 
to  his  death.  Accordingly,  they  include  not  much  less  than  a  period  of 
three  thousand  years.  From  the  death  of  Moses  to  the  death  of  Artax- 
erxes,  who,  after  Xerxes,  reigned  over  the  Persians,  the  Prophets  who 
lived  after  Moses  have  recorded,  in  thirteen  books,  what  happened  in 
their  time.  The  other  four  books  contain  songs  of  praise  to  God  and 
rules  of  life  for  man.  Since  Artaxerxes  up  to  our  time,  everything  has 
been  recorded ;  but  these  writings  are  not  held  to  be  so  worthy  of  credit 
as  those  written  earlier,  because  after  that  time  there  was  no  regular  suc- 
cession of  Prophets." 


Lett.  XI.]      SILENCE   OF   CHRIST   AS   TO   APOCRYPHA.      587 

tion  of  a  canon.  The  number  of  books  may  be  gathered 
from  the  catalogue,  but  it  is  no  more  the  catalogue  itself 
than  the  general  heads  under  which  the  list  is  arranged.  If 
I  should  say  that  there  are  twenty  thousand  volumes  in  the 
library  of  the  South  Carolina  College,  would  that  be  the 
same  as  a  list  of  the  books?  If  I  should  say  that  the 
books  which  it  contains  might  be  conveniently  arranged 
under  the  four  departments  of  Law,  Divinity,  Philosophy 
and  Belles  Lettres,  and  that  each  department  contains  five 
thousand  volumes,  Avould  that  be  equivalent  to  a  catalogue 
of  the  library?  It  is  perfectly  plain,  sir,  that  Josephus  no 
more  gives  us  a  list  of  the  sacred  writings  of  the  Jews 
— Avhich,  with  you,  is  the  only  way  of  referring  to  their 
Canon — than  Christ  and  His  Apostles;  and  there  is  no  line 
of  argument  by  which  you  can  show  that  he  refers  to  the 
Canon  in  the  passage  which  you  have  extracted  from  his 
works  that  will  not  also  show  that  Christ  himself  refers  to 
it  in  the  passage  recorded  by  Luke.  You  yourself,  then, 
being  judge,  your  broad  and  unqualified  assertion,  that 
"there  is  not  in  the  whole  New  Testament  a  single  passage 
showing  that  Christ  and  His  Apostles  ever  referred  to  the 
canon,  catalogue  or  list  of  inspired  books  held  among  the 
Jews,"  is  a  pure  fabrication  of  the  brain.  Your  imagina- 
tion was  evidently  coinmencing  that  grand  process  of  un- 
real formations  which  finally  resulted  in  the  stupendous 
creation  of  a  "general  council  of  the  Church  in  the  old 
law,  claiming  and  exercising  by  the  authority  of  God  the 
])ower  of  teaching  the  faithful  what  were  the  inspired 
books."  I  tremble  for  history  in  this  process  of  travail. 
Labouring  mountains  produce  a  mouse,  but  labouring 
priests  bring  forth  facts  from  the  womb  of  fancy,  are 
delivered  of  gods  in  the  shape  of  bread,  and  produce  re- 
deemers in  the  form  of  saints. 

If,  upon  your  own  hypothesis  that  a  canon  and  a  list  of 
inspired  books  are  .synonymous  terms,  your  position  is 
grossly  and  palpably  erroneous,  how  triumphant  becomes 
its  refutation  upou  tlio  true  view  of  the  case,  that  the  Canon 


588     ARGUMENTS   FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.     [Lett.  XI. 

of  the  Jews  was  tlicir  authoritative  standard  of  faith  !  What 
Philo  and  Josephus  denoted  by  the  terms  "Scriptures," 
"Holy  Scriptures,"  "Sacred  Books,"  "Oracles  of  God," 
and  such  like  expressions,  was  precisely  the  same  thin;^ 
which  is  now  denoted  by  the  compendious  appellation  canon. 
This  word  was  not  at  that  time  in  use  in  reference  to  the 
sacred  books,  but  in  those  connections  in  which  we  would 
naturally  use  it  they  always  employed  some  phraseology 
which  indicated  the  Divine  authority  of  the  books.  All 
books  which  were  written  by  Prophets  or  inspired  men 
belonged  to  the  class  of  Holy  Scriptures,  and  those  which 
were  destitute  of  any  satisfactory  claims  to  a  supernatural 
origin  were  ranked  in  a  different  category.  As,  then,  the 
Jews  evidently  meant  by  the  Scriptures  precisely  what  Ave 
mean  by  the  Canon  or  canonical  books,  our  Saviour's  refer- 
ences, as  also  those  of  His  Apostles,  to  the  Jewish  rule  of 
faith  under  this  general  designation  were  references  to  the 
national  Canon.  Wherever  the  w^ord  occurs  in  allusion  to 
the  sacred  books,  the  corresponding  term  canon  may  be 
safely  substituted,  and  not  the  slightest  change  will  be  made 
in  the  meaning.  With  these  explanations  I  now  proceed 
to  show  that  our  Saviour  did  quote,  approve  and  sanction, 
as  complete,  the  inspired  rule  of  faith  which  the  Jews  in 
his  own  day  professed  to  acknowledge.^ 

1.  First,  he  appealed  to  it  under  its  ancient  division  into 
three  general  departments,  the  Law,  the  Prophets  and  the 
Psalms.  Luke  xxiv.  44.  This,  according  to  Leusden,  was 
the  first  general  partition  of  the  sacred  books.  What  in 
this  category  is  called  Psalms — the  first  book  of  a  class 
being  put  for  the  whole  class — w^as  subsequently  denomi- 
nated Hagiographa ;  the  phrase  employed  by  the  Jews 
[Ketubim)  being  less  definite  and  precise.     The  books  of 

^  In  my  original  essay  I  made  no  special  references  to  show  that  Christ 
and  His  Apostles  had  quoted  and  approved  the  Jewish  Canon,  because 
I  never  dreamed  that  any  human  being  would  think  of  denying  so  plain 
a  proposition.  It  appeared  to  me  like  proving  that  the  sun  shines  at 
noonday. 


Lett.  XI.]      .SILENCE   OF   CHRIST   AS   TO   APOCRYPHA.      589 

this  third  division,  as  woukl  appear  from  the  term  Ketubiin 
itself,  were  usually  described  by  a  periphrasis,  as  there  was 
no  general  name  which  exactly  comprehended  them  all. 
Hence,  in  the  former  Prologue  of  Jesus  the  grandson  of 
Sirach,  they  are  simply  mentioned  under  the  vague  title  of 
the  "  rest  of  the  books."  Josephus  also  applies  to  them  a 
similar  appellation.  The  Psalms  being  the  first  in  order 
under  the  general  class  of  Hagiographa,  our  Saviour,  in 
conformity  with  the  Jewish  method  of  citation,  mentions 
them  as  including  the  rest  of  the  Ketubim.^  It  ai)pears, 
too,  that  Jesus  was  accustomed  to  introduce  repeated  allu- 
sions to  the  books  of  the  Okl  Testament  under  a  twofold 
division — which  not  unfrequently  occurs  in  the  remains  of 
the  Fathers— the  Law  and  the  Prophets.^  (Matt.  v.  17; 
vii.  12;  xi.  13;  xxii.  40;  Luke  xvi.  16.) 

2.  Not  only  did  Christ  and  His  Apostles  appeal  to  the 
Canon  of  the  Jews  in  a  general  way,  but  they  appealed  to 
it  as  possessed  of  Divine  authority.  They  made  a  broad 
distinction  between  it,  and  all  the  writings  of  man.  Paul 
says  expressly,  in  evident  allusion  to  the  sacred  books  of 
his  nation,  "All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God." 
(2  Tim.  iii.  16.) 

Peter  declares  that  "  prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by 
the  will  of  man,  but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  Our  Saviour  refers  the  Jews 
to  the  Scriptures,  Avhich  they  were  in  the  habit  of  reading 
as  containing  the  words  of  everlasting  life,  for  a.  satisfactory 
defence  of  His  own  supernatural  commission.  Then,  again, 
]iarti('ular  passages  are  repeatedly  introduced  as  the  ipsis- 
siina  verba  of  the  Holy  Ghost.^     These  facts  incontestably 

1  The  Paalms  of  our  Saviour's  arraiigemeiit  and  the  Hacjiographa  of 
later  classifications  are  evidently  the  same.  There  being  no  single  word 
l)_v  which  all  the  books  of  this  class  could  be  denoted,  led,  necessarily,  to 
a  periphrastic  de.'scription,  or  to  the  mention  of  a  single  book  as  a  reference 
to  the  series. 

"^  Suicer  on  the  word  ygaipii,  |  7. 

3  The  following  passages  show  the  light  in  which  the  Jewish  Canon  was 
held  bv  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.     I  have  before  me  a  list  of 


590   ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.      [Lett.  XI. 

prove  that  the  Jewish  Canon  was  sanctioned  by  Christ, 
approved  by  His  Apostles,  and  commended  to  the  Church 
as  the  lively  oracles  of  God. 

The  estimate  which  Christ  and  His  Apostles  put  upon 
the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  may  be  gathered  from 
the  fact  that  they  uniformly  treat  Christianity  as  only  a 
development  of  Judaism.  It  was  a  neic  dispensation  of  an 
old  religion.  Hence,  in  their  arguments  with  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  in  their  instructions  to  all  classes  and  conditions 
of  men,  they  refer  to  the  Scriptures — ^the  Law,  the  Prophets 
and  the  Psalms — for  a  Divine  confirmation  of  all  the  doc- 
trines which  they  taught.  The  New  Testament  is  only  an 
inspired  exposition  of  the  principles  contained  in  the  Old. 
Every  doctrine  which  Christ  or  His  Apostles  announced 
may  be  found  in  the  existing  Canon  of  their  day.  What- 
ever changes  they  made  or  novelties  they  taught  respected 
the  organization  and  not  the  essence  of  the  Church.  Hence, 
the  primitive  Christians,  even  before  a  single  Gospel  or 
Epistle  had  been  indited,  had  a  written  rule  of  faith.  They 
were  never  for  a  moment,  as  the  Papists  pretend,  left  to 
oral  tradition  for  the  doctrines  of  their  creed. 

3.  But  the  Jewish  Canon  was  also  held  to  be  eomplete. 
In  the  original  essay  this  point  was  presented  as  a  legiti- 
mate and  obvious  inference  from  the  silence  of  the  Saviour 
in  reference  to  any  defects  in  the  sacred  library  of  his  coun- 
trymen. Now,  the  strength  of  this  argument  must  depend 
on  the  stretigth  of  the  presumption  that  if  such  defects  in 
reality  existed,  the  INIessiah  would  have  felt  Himself  bound 
to  correct  and  remove  them.  According  to  the  hypothesis 
of  Kome,  one-fifth  of  the  revelation  of  God  was  deprived 
of  that  equal  veneration  and  authority  to  which  it  \vas  justly 
entitled  with  the  Law,  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms.  Now 
direct  quotations  made  from  the  Old  Testament  by  the  writers  of  the  New, 
amounting  to  about  272.     Yet  there  is  no  reference  to  the  Jewish  Canon  1 

Matt.  xi.  13,  XV.  3-6,  xix.  4-6,  xxii.  31-43,  xxvi.  54;  Luke  xvi.  16,  29, 
31,  xviii.  31,  xxiv.  25-27,  44-46;  Mark  vii.  9,  13;  John  v.  39,  46,  x.  34; 
Acts  iii.  18,  xxviii.  25;  Rom.  i.  2,  iv.  3-24;  Gal.  iii.  8,  16;  Heb.  iii.  7, 
xii.  25;  1  Pet.  i.  11;  2  Pet.  i.  21. 


Lett.  XI.]      SILENCE   OF   CHRIST   AS   TO   APOCRYPHA.      591 

the  question  is,  whether  that  great  Prophet  of  the  Church 
"  who  was  clad  with  zeal  as  a  cloak,"  who  came  to  "  mag- 
nify the  Law  and  make  it  honourable/'  and  who  expressly 
declared  that  He  had  "not  refrained  His  lips"  from  speak- 
ing righteousness  in  the  great  congregation,  nor  concealed 
from  it  the  truth  and  loving-kindness  of  the  Lord — the  ques- 
tion is,  whether  such  a  Prophet  would  suffer  so  large  a  part 
of  the  light  of  revelation  to  be  extinguished  without  utter- 
ing a  single  word  in  its  defence.  Upwards  of  fourteen  hun- 
dred years  before  He  was  born  His  Father  had  distinctly 
announced,  "  I  will  put  my  words  in  His  mouth,  and  He 
shall  speak  unto  them  all  that  I  shall  command  Him."  He 
came,  then,  not  only  as  a  Priest  and  King,  but  also  as  a 
Teacher,  a  teacher  of  God's  truth,  and  yet  permitted  a  body 
of  that  truth  almo.st  equal  in  bulk  to  the  whole  Xew  Test- 
ament to  be  "  buried  in  the  dust  of  death."  If  He  raised 
no  warning  voice,  no  cry  of  expostulation,  if  He  stood  silent 
by  when  such  violence  was  done  to  the  sacred  records  of  the 
faith,  how  could  He  say,  "  Thy  law  is  within  my  heart,  lo, 
I  have  not  refrained  my  lips,  O  Lord,  thou  knowest"? 
The  Jews  had  excluded  the  Apocrypha,  either  wilfully  or 
ignorantly  :  if  wilfully,  they  were  guilty  of  a  fraud,  and  that 
fraud  ought  to  have  been  rebuked  ;  if  ignorantly,  they  were 
involved  in  a  great  calamity,  and  their  illustrious  Prophet 
Mould  not  have  left  them  in  their  darkness  and  error.  So 
that  upon  every  view  of  the  subject  the  silence  of  Christ  is 
wholly  unaccountable  if  these  books  were  really  inspired. 
It  becomes  simple  and  natural  upon  the  supposition  that 
they  were  merely  human  productions.  He  would  have,  in 
that  case,  no  more  occasion  to  mention  them  than  to  men-, 
tion  the  writings  of  the  Greek  philosophers. 

Now,  sir,  what  is  your  answer  to  this  plain  argument 
from  the  silence  of  Christ?  Why,  you  tell  us  in  your 
third  distinction  that  it  is  not  so  perfectly  certain  that 
Christ  observed  any  such  silence  as  I  have  attributed  to 
Him.  You  inform  us,  in  conformity  with  the  testimony 
of  John — for  that  is  the  only  passage  which  bears  upon  the 


592    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.       [Lett.  XI. 

point — that  Jesus  did  a  great  many  things  which  are  not 
recorded,  therefore  He  must  also  have  said  a  great  many 
things  which  have  not  been  preserved.  I  confess  that  I  do 
not  exactly  perceive  the  consequence.  But  let  that  pass. 
Let  us  admit  that  He  may  have  said  as  well  as  done  a  great 
many  things  which  have  never  been  written,  is  it  likely 
that  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists  would  have  omitted  what 
their  Master  had  taught  in  reference  to  a  subject  so  vastly 
important  as  the  very  constitution  of  His  Ciiurch?  No  his- 
tory perhaps  records  all  the  sayings  and  doings  of  the  Con- 
tinental Congress,  but  that  certainly  would  not  deserve  the 
name  of  a  history  that  should  neglect  to  make  the  most  dis- 
tant reference  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  What- 
ever other  things  the  sacred  writers  have  passed  in  silence 
and  neglect,  we  may  feel  perfectly  certain  that  they  have 
not  concealed  or  suppressed  the  instructions  of  their  Master 
in  regard  to  so  fundamental  a  matter  as  the  rule  of  faith. 
The  very  same  arguments  that  render  it  improbable  that 
our  Saviour  would  have  failed  to  correct  the  defects  of  the 
Jewish  Canon,  if  any  defects  had  existed,  render  it  also 
improbable  that  His  biographers  would  have  neglected  to 
record  the  substance,  at  least,  of  what  He  had  taught  upon 
the  subject.  If  we  grant,  however,  that  their  silence  is  no 
proof  of  their  Master's  silence,  you  have  gained  nothing. 
You  have  only  avoided  one  difficulty  by  plunging  into 
another.  You  would  have  the  silence  of  the  Apostles  and 
Evangelists  to  explain,  instead  of  the  silence  of  Christ. 
For  this  and  all  other  difficulties,  however,  you  have  a 
stereotyped  solution  at  hand.  What  Christ  did  not  choose 
to  do  in  person  upon  earth,  and  what  His  Apostles  failed  to 
perform  however  clearly  within  the  compass  of  their  sacred 
commission,  may  yet  be  accomplished  by  a  standing  tribu- 
nal, a  general  council  of  the  Church,  like  the  fictitious  syna- 
gogue of  Ezra,  "  claiming  and  exercising  by  the  authority 
of  God  the  power  of  teaching  the  faithful  what  were  the 
inspired  works."  But  as  every  error  accumulates  additions 
in  its  progress — vires  acqni fit  eundo — so  your  infallible  body 


"Lett.  XI.]      SILENCE   OF   CHRIST   AS   TO   APOCRYPHA.      593 

possesses  some  larger  powers  in  your  second  letter  than  it 
was  re^^resented  to  possess  in  your  first.  You  have  brought  it 
so  often  before  the  public,  and  exposed  it  to  view  in  such  tat- 
tered apparel,  that  it  has  finally  lost  ite  modesty,  and  begins 
to  speak  more  "swelling  words  of  vanity"  than  it  dared  to 
utter  at  its  first  appearance.  In  your  first  letter  councils  could 
do  no  more,  on  the  head  of  doctrine,  than  merely  declare 
and  define  what  had  always  been  the  faith  of  the  Church. 
They  possessed  no  power  to  make  new  articles  of  faith ; 
they  could  only  announce  with  infallible  certainty  what  had 
always  been  the  old.  In  your  second  letter  these  councils 
rise  a  step  higher  and  become  prophets  themselves,  intrusted 
with  new  revelations,  which  neither  Christ  nor  His  Apostles 
had  ever  communicated  to  the  Church.  It  seems  that  it  is 
a  matter  of  no  sort  of  consequence  whether  Christ  or  His 
Apostles  in  their  om' n  persons  had  ever  testified  to  the  inspi- 
ration of  the  Apocrypha — that  is,  had  ever  taught  that  the 
Apocrypha  were  inspired  :  an  infallible  council  could  sub- 
sequently teach  it  for  them.  How?  If  Christ  and  His 
Apostles  had  never  taught  it,  the  members  of  the  council 
could  not  receive  it  from  tradition ;  they  must  therefore 
ascertain  the  fact  by  immediate  revelation.  What  your  coun- 
cils will  become  next  it  is  impossible  to  augur ;  they  already 
claim  to  be  the  voice  of  the  Lord ;  they  will  perhaps  aspire 
to  be  God  himself.  I  shall  add  nothing  here  to  what  I 
have  already  said  touching  your  pretensions  to  infallibility. 
My  previous  numbers  are  a  full  refutation  of  this  stupen- 
dous folly. 

You  are  extremely  unfortunate  in  your  attempt  to  refute 
from  analogy  my  obvious  inference  from  the  silence  of  the 
Saviour.  You  appeal  to  the  case  of  the  Sadducees  and 
Samaritans,  who,  according  to  you,  denied  all  the  books 
of  the  Jewish  Canon  but  the  five  books  of  Moses,  and 
yet  were  not  rebuked  by  the  Saviour  for  their  wicked 
infidelity. 

Now,  sir,  that  the  Sadducees  denied  the  Divine  authority 
of  the  Prophets  and  Ketubim  I  think  it  will  be  difficult 

Vol.  in.— 38 


594     ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.      [Lktt.  XL 

for  you  or  any  other  man  to  prove.  It  has  been  supposed 
that  because  our  Saviour  refutes  their  skeptical  opinions  in 
regard  to  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  by  a  passage  extracted 
from  the  Pentateuch,  therefore  they  denied  the  inspiration 
of  any  other  books.  But  it  will  be  seen,  by  inspecting  the 
context,  that  they  had  drawn  their  cavils  from  a  distinctive 
provision  of  the  Jewish  law.  They  had  virtually  asserted 
that  the  Pentateuch  denied  the  resurrection,  since  in  a  given 
case  its  peculiar  requisitions,  according  to  their  view,  would 
introduce  confusion  and  discord  into  the  future  state.  The 
Saviour  met  their  difficulties  by  correcting  their  misappre- 
hensions in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  future  life,  and  by 
distinctly  showing  that  Moses  had  taught  the  doctrine  which 
they  supposed  he  had  condemned.  Among  the  Fathers, 
Origen,  Tertullian,  Jerome  and  Athanasius  have  endorsed 
this  calumny  upon  the  faith  of  the  Sadducees.  It  was  first 
called  in  question  by  Drusius,  and  subsequently  refuted  with 
such  triumphant  success  by  Joseph  Scaliger  that  Bishop 
Bull  pronounces  his  argument  to  be  decisive  of  the  ques- 
tion. That  must  be  a  bad  cause  in  a  matter  of  literary 
criticism  which  such  men  as  Scaliger,  Spanheim,  Pearson, 
Bull,  Jortin,  Waterland  and  Eichhorn,  to  say  nothing  of 
Brucker,  Buddseus  and  Basnage,  unite  to  condemn,  and 
yet  all  these  men  are  found  arrayed  against  the  patristic 
opinion  that  the  Sadducees  rejected  the  Prophets  and  the 
Psalms.^ 

It  is  universally  acknowledged  that  the  Samaritans  denied 
the  Divine  authority  of  the  whole  Jewish  Canon,  with  the 
exception  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  it  is  not  so  clear  that  the 
Saviour  failed  to  rebuke  them.  You  are  probably  aware, 
sir,  that  distinguished  commentators,  both  in  ancient  and 
modern  times,  have  regarded  John  iv.  22  as  a  pointed 
reproof  of  Samaritan  infidelity,  and  it  was  incumbent  upon 
you  to  prove  that  this  common  interpretation  was  erroneous 
before  you  could  confidently  assume  that  the  whole  matter 

1  Brucker,  vol.  ii.,  p.  721;  Pearson,  Viiulicut.  Ignat.,  part  i.,  c.  vii., 
p.  467  ;  Bull,  Harm.  Apost.  Diss.  Po^^t.,  cap.  x.,  §  14. 


Lett.  XL]      SILENCE   OF   CHRIST   AS   TO   APOCRYPHA.      595 

was  permitted  to  pass  sub  sikntio  by  Christ.^  Again,  it  was 
hardly  necessary  to  rebuke  the  Samaritans,  as  our  Saviour's 
notorious  concurrence  in  the  faith  of  tlie  Jews  was  an  open, 
])ublic  and  sufficient  condemnation  of  the  errors  and  defects 
of  this  remarkable  people. 

The  inconsistency  of  the  various  solutions  which  you  have 
suggested  to  the  palpable  difficulty  arising  from  the  silence 
of  Christ  affords  an  amusing  illustration  of  human  weak- 
ness. Fii'st,  it  was  not  so  absolutely  certain  that  Christ  was 
silent,  since  He  performed  many  signs  and  wonders  which 
have  never  been  committed  to  Avritten  records.  Then,  again. 
He  could  afford  to  be  silent,  as  He  had  established  an  infal- 
lible tribunal  abundantly  competent  to  supply  all  His  de- 
ficiencies and  teach  the  faithful  to  the  end  of  time.  In  an 
analogous  case,  that  of  the  Sadducees  and  Samaritans,  He 
probably  was  silent,  as  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  that 
He  rebuked  the  former  for  a  sin  which  they  never  committed, 
and  very  strong  evidence  that  He  reproved  the  latter  for  an 
omission  of  which  they  were  undoubtedly  guilty  !  So  you 
seem  to  oscillate  between  a  denial  and  admission  of  the 
silence  of  Christ.  Like  a  man  walking  upon  ice,  you  tread 
with  wary  steps,  lest  your  next  movement  should  engulf  you. 
Finally,  however,  after  all  your  vibrations,  you  "screw 
your  courage  to  the  sticking  place,"  and  settle  down  in 
grim  despair  upon  a  probable  solution  by  which  you  seem 
determined  to  abide.  You  stoutly  deny  that  Christ  was 
silent  in  the  matter,  and  promise  to  prove  "  that  Christ  and 
His  Apostles  did  take  some  steps,  not  indeed  to  insert  those 
books  in  the  Jewish  Canon,  but  to  give  them  to  the  Chris- 
tians as  divinely-inspired  works."  Apart  from  the  testimony 
of  an  inftdlibk  Church,  the  only  proof  which  you  present  in 
your  second  letter  of  this  miserable  fiction  is  drawn  fi'om 
the  assum[)tion  that  in  the  New  Testament  quotations  are 
made  from  the  Apocryphal  writers,  and  from  the  admitted 

1  Such  is  the  interpretation  put  upon  this  passage  by  Aninionius,  (.iro- 
tiiis,  Lanipe,  Tholuclc  and  others.  Tholuck's  comment  is  specially  deserv- 
ing of  notice. 


596     AKGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.     [Lett.  XI. 

fact  that  these  books  v:ere  early  embodied  iu  the  SeptuaLrint. 
The  first  position  you  have  entirely  failed  to  substantiate. 
There  is  no  proof  whatever  that  a  single  passage  from  any 
of  the  books  of  the  Apocrypha  is  introduced  into  the  docu- 
ments which  compose  the  New  Testament.  The  passage, 
Rom.  xi.  34,  which  of  all  others  seems  to  be  most  analo- 
gous to  a  corresponding  text  in  the  book  of  Wisdom  (ix.  31), 
is  confessed  by  several  of  the  Fathers,  Tertullian,  Basil  and 
Ambrose,  as  well  as  by  modern  authors  of  the  Papal  sect, 
to  have  been  borrowed  from  the  canonical  prophet  Isaiah, 
xl.  13.^  If,  however,  it  could  be  proved  that  the  Apocrypha 
were  quoted  by  Christ  and  His  Apostles,  this  would  not 
establish  their  Divine  inspiration,  unless  it  could  also  be 
shown  that  every  book  quoted  in  the  New  Testament  was 
on  that  account  inspired.  I  can  conceive  of  no  other  major 
proposition  which  would  answer  the  ends  of  the  argument. 
But  surely,  sir,  you  would  not  hazard  a  statement  like  this ! 
It  is  more  than  Trent  would  dare  to  assert,  that  the  hea- 
then poets  whose  verses  are  found  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
were  holy  men  of  Greece  who  spake  as  they  were  moved  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  an  old  logical  maxim  that  an  argu- 
ment which  proves  too  much  proves  in  reality  nothing. 

Your  reasoning  from  the  second  fact  is  easily  set  aside. 
You  proceed  on  the  assumption,  for  which  you  quote  the 
authority  of  AValton,  that  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  His 
Apostles  the  Septuagint  contained  the  Apociypha.^     You 

^  See  Number  IX.  of  this  series  of  letters. 

^  I  have  seen  no  reason,  since  writing  my  original  essay,  to  change  the 
opinion  which  I  then  expressed,  that  the  Septuagint  in  the  time  of  Christ 
did  not  contain  the  Apocrypha.  If  these  documents  were  in  the  hands  of 
the  Apostles,  why  were  they  never  quoted  ?  How  does  it  happen  that  not 
a  single  allusion  is  made  to  them  nor  a  single  passage  extracted  from 
them?  But  the  subject  is  too  unimportant  to  allow  much  time  to  be  spent 
upon  it.  I  shall  just  observe  that  I  am  sustained  in  my  opinion  by  Eich- 
horn  as  well  as  Schmidius.  The  passage  from  Walton  proves  nothing  as 
to  the  Hme  when  the  union  betwixt  the  Septuagint  and  Apocrypha  took 
place.  A.  P.  F.'s  eulogy  upon  AValton's  competency  to  settle  a  question 
of  this  sort  is  not  a  little  amusing,  since  probably  the  most  exceptional)le 
j>;irt  of  his  famous  Prolegomena  is  in  relation  to  the  origin  of  the  Sep- 


Lett.  XI.]      SILENCE   OF   CHRIST   AS   TO    APOCRYPHA.      597 

then  infer  that  "if  those  books  were  uninspired,  the  Saviour 
and  His  Apostles  were  certainly  bound  positively  to  reject 
them."  Now,  as  I  have  already  shown  from  the  very  nature 
of  the  case,  to  insert  a  book  into  the  Canon  is  to  receive  it  as 
inspired,  and  to  reject  a  book  is  to  be  not  persuaded  or  con- 
vinced of  its  Divine  inspiration,  or,  to  pronounce  it  unin- 
spired. As  there  is  no  evidence  that  a  single  man,  woman 
or  child  in  the  whole  land  of  Judea  looked  upon  the  Apoc- 
rypha as  inspired  productions,  what  need  was  there  that 
Christ  should  positively  assert  what  no  one  thought  of  deny- 
ing ?  His  silence  w^as  conclusive  proof  that  He  acquiesced 
in  the  popular  opinion.  It  was  beyond  all  controversy  the 
positive  rejection  for  which  you  so  earnestly  plead. 

You  have  admitted  that  the  Jews  had  no  satisfactory  evi- 
dence that  the  Apocrypha  were  inspired,  that  they  were 
excluded  from  the  Jewish  Canon,  and  of  course  a  complete 
separation  as  to  authority  was  made  between  them  and  the 
sacred  books !  Every  end  was  consequently  answered  which 
could  have  been  effected  by  the  most  pointed  denunciation 
of  these  books.  There  was  no  need  for  Christ  to  s[)eak, 
unless  He  intended  to  add  these  works  to  the  sacred  Canon. 
Then  it  would  have  been  necessary  to  show  the  Jews  their 
error  in  refusing  to  admit  the  Divine  authority  of  Tobit, 
Judith  and  Wisdom.  The  truth  is,  you  have  been  led  into 
this  fallacious  argument  by  the  ambiguity  of  the  sentence 
that  the  Sej)tuagint  contained  the  Apocrypha.  You  evi- 
dently treat  the  phrase  as  conveying  the  idea  that  whatever 
books  were  inserted  in  that  version  Avere  possessed  of  e(|ual 
authority.  The  only  meaning,  however,  which  the  words 
can  consistently  bear  is  that  wherever  there  were  copies  of 
the  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament  there  were  also 
copies  of  the  Greek  documents  which  we  now  style  the 
Apocrypha.  They  usually  went  together,  and  that  for  the 
purpose  of  presenting  in  regular  series  the  remarkable  hi.s- 
tory  of  God's  chosen  people.     In  this  way  a  complete  col- 

tua^i'it.  He  ought  not  to  be  read  upon  this  point  without  Hody  at  liaiid 
to  correct  his  partiality  for  the  fable  of  Aristjeus. 


598     ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED,     [Lett.  XI. 

lection  was  made  of  Jewish  literature,  inspired  and  unin- 
spired. The  line  was  clearly  drawn  betAveen  the  Divine 
and  human,  but  as  they  both  met  in  the  common  point  of 
Jewish  history,  they  were  united  together  in  one  collection. 
Thus  much  might  have  been  gathered  from  the  famous  pas- 
sage of  Josephus  which  was  evidently  before  your  eyes. 
"  We  have  not,"  says  he,  "  innumerable  books  which  con- 
tradict each  other,  but  only  twenty-two,  which  comprise 
the  history  of  all  times  past.  .  .  .  Since  Artaxerxes  up  to 
our  time,  everything  has  been  recorded."  In  the  eyes  of 
Josephus,  then,  both  the  canonical  and  Apocryphal  books 
contained  the  history  of  his  nation,  and  therefore  had  a  com- 
mon quality  which  might  serve  as  a  bond  of  union,  but  the 
difference  between  them  lay  in  this :  the  twenty-two  books 
were  "justly  held  to  be  Divine;"  those  composed  since  the 
time  of  Artaxerxes  "  were  not  so  worthy  of  credit,  because 
after  that  time  there  was  no  regular  succession  of  Prophets" 
or  inspired  writers.  Another  circumstance  Avhich  undoubt- 
edly contributed  in  no  small  degree  to  the  popularity  of 
those  works  was  their  singular  adaptation  to  the  religious 
spirit  of  the  age.  The  Jews,  like  the  Papists,  had  obscured 
the  revelation  of  God,  and,  trusting  in  the  vain  traditions 
of  man,  had  mistaken  superstition  for  piety  and  sentiment 
for  grace.  Hence,  they  would  be  likely  to  regard  (particu- 
larly the  Hellenists)  these  Apocryphal  documents  with  the 
same  sort  of  veneration  with  which  we  now  conteni[)late 
the  monuments  of  illustrious  teachers  of  the  truth. 

It  is,  certainly,  no  commendation  of  these  books  to  say 
that  they  were  written  with  that  subordinate  degree  of  in- 
spiration which  the  Jews  denominate  the  "  daughter  of  the 
voice.'' ^  The  stories  of  the  Pabbins  concerning  this  sin- 
gular method  of  supernatural  communication  reveal  a  de- 
gree of  superstition  and  betray  a  fondness  for  magical 
delusion  which  sufficiently  illustrate  the  real  source  of 
their  famous  "bath  quol."     In  attributing  to  the  Avritings 

'  For  an  account  of  this  species  of  insjjiration.  see  Witsii  Opera,  vol.  i., 
lib.  i.,  c.  3 ;  Lightfoot  on  Matt.  iii.  17. 


Lett.  XL]     SILEXCE   OF  CHRIST   AS  TO   APOCRYPHA.      599 

of  the  Apocrypha  this  peculiar  species  of  inspiration,  they 
naturally  awakened  a  suspicion  that  much  of  the  esteem  in 
which  they  held  them  may  be  ultimately  traced  to  their 
own  patronage  of  something  not  very  remote  from  the  black 
art.  A  strong  inclination  to  credulity  and  magic  was,  ac- 
cording to  Lightfoot,  a  characteristic  of  the  Jews  under  the 
second  temple,  and  I  know  of  nothing  better  suited  to  a 
humour  of  this  sort  than  the  book  of  Tobit,  unless  it  be  the 
Arabian  Nights. 

You  seem  to  think  that  if  these  books  were  not  admitted 
into  the  Septuagint  until  after  the  time  of  Christ,  it  must 
have  been  done  ^y'lth  the  sanction  of  the  Apostles  in  such 
a  way  as  to  imply  that  they  were  divinely  inspired.  This 
Avould  follow  only  upon  the  hypothesis  that  when  admitted 
they  w^ere  admitted  as  insjiired.  If  they  w^ere  introduced 
into  connection  with  the  Septuagint  simply  as  historical 
works  covering  an  interesting  period  of  the  Jewish  annals, 
or  as  moral  compositions  pervaded  by  an  elevated  tone  of 
religious  sentiment,  there  would  be  no  more  objection  to  in- 
corporating them  with  the  Septuagint  than  to  placing  them 
on  the  same  shelf  in  a  bookcase.  The  Apostles,  I  presume, 
■would  not  have  objected  to  their  followers  that  they  studied 
the  writings  of  the  heathen  philosophers,  provided  they  did 
not  make  Plato  and  Aristotle  arbiters  of  their  faith.  It 
w^as  not  the  perusal  of  the  books,  or  the  places  in  which 
they  were  found,  that  could  make  a  matter  of  exception. 
So  long  as  they  were  treated  simply  as  human  compositions, 
possessed  of  no  Divine  authority,  and  to  be  ultimately  tried 
in  all  their  doctrines  by  the  sacred  Canon,  the  Apostles  w^ould 
hardly  object  to  the  study  of  them.  It  w^as  no  part  of  their 
creed  to  denounce  freedom  of  inquiry;  on  the  other  hand, 
they  inculcated  the  noble  and  generous  maxim,  "  Prove  all 
things,  hold  fast  that  which  is  good."  Paul  did  not  hesitate 
to  quote  the  heathen  poets;  and  if  the  Hellenistic  Jews  and 
the  early  Christians  could  not  place  the  Apocryj)ha  by  the 
side  of  their  canonical  books  w'ithout  sanctioning  the  inspi- 
ration of  the  former,  how  could  Paul  weave  whole  sentences 


600   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.    [Lett,  XII. 

of  heathen  poetry  into  his  own  Divine  compositions  with- 
out, at  the  same  time,  endorsing  the  supernatural  inspira- 
tion of  Aratus,  Menander  and  Epimenides?  The  argument 
from  the  Septuagint's  containing  the  Apocrypha  is  so  evi- 
dently preposterous  that  it  need  be  pressed  no  farther. 
Let  it  lie  in  its  glory,  and  let  peace  be  with  it. 

The  whole  matter  in  dispute  betwixt  us  is  brought  down 
at  last  to  this  plain  issue :  the  Apocrypha  must  be  rejected 
from  the  sacred  canon  and  treated  simply  as  human  compo- 
sitions, unless  it  can  be  shown  that  Christ  and  His  Apostles 
did  sanction  their  Divine  inspiration  and  authorize  their 
use  as  standards  of  faith.  Up  to  the  time  of  Christ  there 
was  no  satisfactory  proof  that  they  constituted  any  part  of 
the  oracles  of  God.  Whatever  evidence,  therefore,  now 
exists  of  their  supernatural  character  must  have  been  de- 
veloped in  the  age  of  the  Apostles.  Their  inspiration  must 
have  been  approved  by  men  who  gave  unquestionable  evi- 
dence that  they  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  This  is  the  proof  which  the  case  demands ;  and 
if  you  fail  to  produce  it,  you  are  only  spending  your 
strength  for  that  which  is  not  bread,  and  your  labour  for 
that  which  satisfieth  not. 


LETTER    XII. 


THE   APOCRYPHA   AND   THE   JEWISH  CHURCH— THE   APOCRYPHA 
AND  THE   PRIMITIVE  CHURCH. 

To  you  and  all  your  predecessors  in  this  field  of  contro- 
versy the  conduct  of  the  Jewish  Church — to  whom  were  com- 
mitted the  oracles  of  God — in  regard  to  the  Apocryplia  has 
been  so  seriously  embarrassing,  that  your  efforts  to  explain  it 
in  consistency  with  your  own  views  of  their  Divine  original  are 
a  powerful  illustration  of  the  desperate  expedients  to  which 
men  may  be  driven  by  extremity  of  circumstances  who  arc 


Lett.  XII.]        APOCRYPHA    AND   JEWISH   CHURCH.  601 

resolved  not  to  receive  the  truth.  The  rule  of  Augii.stine  is 
so  palpably  just,  that  the  authority  of  a  book  must  depend 
on  the  testimony  of  contemporary  witnesses,  that  the  ab- 
sence of  all  such  testimony  in  the  present  case,  or  of  any 
testimony  at  all  for  a  long  series  not  of  years  alone  but  of 
centuries,  is  felt  to  be  a  huge  impediment  to  your  cause. 
As  you  cannot  suborn  the  ancient  people  of  God  to  give  the 
least  countenance  to  your  vain  and  arrogant  pretensions,  you 
expend  all  your  ingenuity  upon  fruitless  and  abortive  efforts 
to  reconcile  the  exclusion  of  the  Apocryphal  books  from  the 
Jewish  Canon  with  your  modern  hypothesis  of  their  Divine 
inspiration.  The  Jesuits  cannot  disguise  their  spleen  at  the 
stubborn  and  intractable  conduct  of  the  sons  of  Abraham. 
In  the  true  spirit  of  some  of  the  venerable  Fathers  of 
Trent,^  Bellarmine  speaks  of  the  Jewish  synagogue  with 
great  contempt,  representing  it  to  be,  from  its  very  name,  a 
collection  of  cattle  rather  than  men.  And  Campianus,  his 
inferior  in  learning,  though  his  superior  in  elegance,  treats 
its  Canon  as  a  mere  grammatical  affair  dependent  upon  the 
characters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet,  and  incapable  of  being 
increased  after  the  books  had  reached  the  charmed  number 
of  the  letters.  Others  again  have  endeavoured  to  show  that 
the  Jews,  as  a  body,  always  entertained  a  profound  respect 
for  these  disputed  documents,  and  that  some  of  the  nation 
actually  received  them  as  divinely  inspired.^     But  of   all 

1  The  spirit  of  the  Fathers  of  Trent  may  be  gathered  from  the  following 
extract : 

"  To  these  reasons,  which  the  major  part  applauded,  others  added  also 
that  if  the  providence  of  God  hath  given  an  authentical  Scripture  to  the 
Synagogue,  and  an  authentical  New  Testament  to  the  Grecians,  it  cannot 
be  said  without  derogation  that  the  Church  of  Rome,  more  beloved  than 
the  rest,  hath  wanted  this  great  benefit,  and  therefore  that  the  same  Holy 
Ghost  who  did  dictate  the  holy  books  hath  dictated  also  that  translation 
which  ought  to  be  accepted  by  the  Church  of  Rome." — Father  Paul,  p. 
147.  For  a  full  and  able  refutation  of  Campianus  and  Bellarmine  upon 
this  subject,  see  Rainold,  Cens.  Lib.  Apoc,  Prelect,  xi.,  torn,  i.,  p.  96,  etc. 

2  This  opinion  is  attributed  by  Melchior  Canus  to  Cochlseus,  but  the  per- 
sons among  the  Jews  who  did  receive  these  books  have  never  been  brought 
to  light. 


602   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.     [Lett.  XII. 

the  theories  which  have  ever  been  invented,  tlmt  which  you 
have  borrowed  from  Melchior  Canus,  and  endorsed,  is  be- 
yond controversy  the  most  unfortunate.  It  turns  upon  a 
distinction  which  I  have  already  shown  to  be  false,  which 
Bellarmine  himself  saw  to  be  imtenable  and  consequently 
passed  without  discussion,  and  which,  as  presented  by  you, 
is  absolutely  fatal  to  your  cause.  You  deny  that  the  Jews 
rejected  the  Apocrypha  because  they  had  no  satisfactory 
evidence  that  the  books  were  inspired,  or  possessed  no  tri- 
bunal competent  to  enlarge  the  extent  of  the  Canon.  They 
did  not  receive  them,  you  admit;  but  as  no  body  commis- 
sioned to  pronounce  an  authoritative  judgment  probably 
existed,  there  could  be  no  rejection  in  the  case.  You  lay 
great  stress  upon  the  arbitrary  distinction  of  Canus,  that 
there  is  a  vast  difference  between  not  receiving  a  book  as 
Divine  and  positively  rejecting  it  as  a  human  composition.^ 
Now,  sir,  you  have  only  to  turn  to  your  second  letter  to 
perceive  what  you  regarded  as  satisfactory  proof  that  in  the 
days  of  Ezra  an  infallible  tribunal  existed,  a  council  of  the 
Church  in  the  old  law  commissioned  by  God  for  the  express 
purpose  of  teaching  the  fiithful  what  were  the  inspired 
books.  In  your  first  and  subsequent  letters  conclusive  evi- 
dence is  furnished  of  your  firm  conviction  that  many  of 
these  Apocryphal  books  were  written  before  the  time  of  the 
great  synagogue,  and  consequently  must  have  been  in  exist- 
ence at  the  period  of  Ezra.  You  attribute,  for  instance, 
the  book  of  Wisdom  to  Solomon ;  Baruch,  according  to  you, 
was  originally  an  integral  portion  of  Jeremiah;  and  the  in- 
ternal evidence  is  strong  that  the  book  of  Tobit  was  written 
some  six  or  seven  hundred  years  before  the  advent  of  Christ. 
Then,  again,  the  Song  of  the  Three  Children,  the  History 
of  Susannah,  together  with  the  Story  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon, 
you  represent  as  having  been  originally  parts  of  Daniel. 
The  additions  to  the  book  of  Esther,  too,  you  make  to  bo  a 

1  "  Aliiul  est  cnim  non  accipere,  aliud  rejicere.  Certe  Jtula>i  intra  smim 
Canonem  hos  libros  publica  auihoritate  niinime  receperunt,  taniet.><i  non- 
nulli  ex  illis  sacros  et  Divinos  esse  crediderint." — Lib.  ii.,  cap.  x. 


Lett.  XII.]         APOCRYPHA   AND   JEWISH   CHURCH.  603 

portion  of  the  book  itself.  From  these  statements  it  is 
evident  that  Avhen  the  Jewish  Canon  was  settled  some  of 
the  Apocryphal  books  were  in  being.  Here,  then,  is  a  curi- 
ous question :  if  a  body  specially  commissioned  to  teach  the 
faithful  Avhat  were  the  inspired  books  should  omit  to  enu- 
merate among  them  any  that  were  truly  inspired,  would  not 
such  omission  be  exactly  tantamount  to  positive  rejection  ? 
It  would  be  vain  to  say  that  no  sufficient  evidence  existed 
that  the  omitted  books  were  really  inspired;  the  very  object 
of  a])pointing  such  a  body  is  to  afford  that  evidence.  Neither 
can  it  be  pretended  that  the  books,  though  in  being  at  the 
time,  might  be  unknown  to  the  tribunal ;  since,  according 
to  the  very  terms  of  its  commission,  it  was  authorized  to 
pronounce  with  infallible  certainty  what  books  were  in- 
spired. Hence,  such  a  body  must  have  known  all  the 
inspired  books  that  were  extant  at  the  time,  and  its  failure 
to  insert  any  book  in  the  Canon  becomes,  by  consequence, 
a  damning  proof  of  its  human  and  earthly  origin.  Now, 
if  an  infallible  council  settled  the  Canon  of  the  Jewish 
Church — and  such,  we  have  seen,  is  your  hypothesis — if,  at 
the  time  Avhen  the  Canon  was  settled,  Baruch, -Wisdom  and 
Tobit,  the  additions  to  Daniel  and  the  additions  to  Esther, 
were  extant,  if  it  is  undeniably  certain  that  these  composi- 
tions were  not  inserted,  is  not  the  conclusion  irresistible 
that  they  were  rejected  by  a  body  competent  to  determine 
their  character  ?  Will  you  be  pleased  to  explain  upon  any 
other  hypothesis  how  it  happened  that  if  Baruch  was  an 
integral  portion  of  Jeremiah,  the  great  synagogue  separated 
it  from  the  rest  of  the  book  ?  I^et  me  ask  you  again,  if 
AVisdom  were  written  by  Solomon,  and  was,  as  you  say, 
truly  inspired,  why  did  it  not  receive  at  the  hands  of  the 
council  the  same  treatment  with  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastcs  and 
Canticles?  How  comes  it  that  the  Song  of  the  Three  Chil- 
dren and  the  Story  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon  did  not  pass 
into  the  Canon  with  the  rest  of  Daniel?  Why  were  the 
additions  to  the  book  of  Esther  excluded?     And  why  was 


604     ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.   [Lett.  XII. 

Tobias,  your  darling  Tobias,  prevented  from  being  enrolled 
among  the  authoritative  documents  of  faith  ? 

One  of  two  things  is  intuitively  evident— either  the  tri- 
bunal which  settled  the  Canon  of  the  Jews  was  not  com- 
petent to  teach  the  faithful  what  were  the  inspired  books,  or 
Baruch,  Wisdom  and  Tobit  were  rejected.  If  you  accede 
to  the  first  proposition,  you  contradict  your  position  affirm- 
ing tlie  existence  of  an  infallible  tribunal  in  the  time  of 
Ezra  for  settling  the  Canon;  if  you  admit  the  latter,  you 
contradict  your  repeated  declarations  that  the  Jews  did  not 
reject  the  Apocrypha,  since,  according  to  this  view,  they 
must  have  rejected  some  of  them.  So  that  self-contradiction 
awaits  you  whichever  horn  of  the  dilemma  you  choose  to 
adopt.  If,  however,  you  concede  what  upon  the  preced- 
ing statement  of  the  case  cannot  be  consistently  denied,  that 
any  portion  of  the  Apocrypha  was  rejected,  then,  according 
to  your  own  hypothesis,  you  have  the  testimony  of  an  in- 
fallible body  against  the  inspiration  of  the  rejected  portion. 
This  reduces  you  to  a  still  more  deplorable  dilemma ;  and 
how  you  will  extricate  yourself  it  is  impossible  for  me  to 
determine.  On  the  one  hand,  the  Great  Synagogue  of  Ezra 
stares  you  in  the  face,  pronouncing  with  infallible  certainty 
that  certain  books  are  not  inspired;  on  the  other,  you  are 
damned  by  the  Council  of  Trent  if  you  do  not  receive  it 
as  infallible  truth  that  these  same  books  are  inspired. 
"When  Greek  meets  Greek,  then  comes  the  tug  of  war." 

My  purpose  in  exposing  the  suicidal  character  of  your 
argument  is  simply  to  show  that  upon  every  view  of  the 
case  the  testimony  of  the  Jewish  Church  is  clear  and  de- 
cided against  the  inspiration  of  the  books  whose  Divine 
authority  you  have  undertaken  to  defend.  That  testimony 
you  cannot  evade.  Your  nice  distinctions  are  wholly  in- 
effectual, and  if  you  cannot  rebut  the  decision  of  the  Jew- 
ish Church  by  the  authoritative  instructions  of  Christ  or 
His  Apostles,  your  cause  is  hopeless.  Let  the  reader,  then, 
bear  distinctly  in  mind  that  what  you  are  required  to  prove 
is  the  historical   fact   that  our   blessed  Saviour,  or  His  in- 


Lett.  XII.]     APOCRYPHA    AND   PRIMITIVE    CHURCH.  605 

spired  Apostles,  committed  the  Apocrypha  to  the  Christian 
Church  as  infallible  standards  of  faith.  Up  to  the  time  of 
Christ  we  find  them  treated  as  human  compositions  ;  and 
we  must  continue  to  regard  them  in  the  same  light,  unless 
it  can  be  shown  that  our  great  Prophet  has  otherwise  in- 
structed the  Church.  / 

In  your  pretended  refutation  of  the  second  argument  of 
my  original  essay  you  undertake  the  hopeless  task  of  prov- 
ing that  the  Primitive  Church  received  these  books  from  the 
hands  of  the  Apostles  as  inspired  productions.  Your  rea- 
soning, if  a  series  of  assumptions  can  be  called  reasoning, 
may  be  reduced  to  the  following  syllogism  :  Whatever  books 
tlie  Primitive  Church  received  as  inspired  must  have  been 
received  upon  the  authority  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles; 
the  Apocrypha  were  received  by  the  Primitive  Church  as 
inspired;  therefore  they  must  have  been  received  upon  the 
authority  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles.  The  testimony  of 
the  Primitive  Church  is  consequently  your  medium  of  proof — 
a  testimony,  in  this  case,  which,  as  we  shall  subsequently  see, 
is  not  pointed  and  direct,  but  only  mediate  and  inferential. 

This  argument  or  syllogism  is  grossly  at  fault  in  two  par- 
ticulars. In  the  first  place,  the  major  proposition  is  not 
logically  necessary,  and  you  have  not  attempted  to  show  the 
connection  between  the  .subject  and  predicate.  For  aught 
that  appears  to  the  contrary,  the  primitive  Christians  might 
have  received  books  as  inspired  without  the  sanction  of 
Christ  or  His  Apostles.  Certain  it  is  that  you  have  no- 
where proved  that  they  could  not  have  done  it.  You  tell 
us  that  ''if  they  united  in  receiving  those  works  as  inspired, 
then  is  our  [the  Papal]  cause  fully  sustained ;  for  they  would 
not  have  thus  united  unless  they  had  been  taught  by  the 
Apostles  that  these  books  formed  a  part  of  the  Word  of 
God."  How  does  it  appear  that  they  would  not  have  united 
except  upon  the  specified  condition?  All  that  I  can  find  in 
the  shape  of  proof  is,  "that  they  were  tried  in  the  furnace 
of  persecution,  and  laid  down  their  lives  by  thousands, 
rather  than  swerve  one  jot  or  tittle  from  the  truth  handed 


QrS    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.     [Lett.  XII, 

down  to  them"!  That  they  were  exposed  to  dangers,  suf- 
ferings and  death  is  evident,  but  that  this  proves  anything 
more  than  the  sincerity  of  their  convictions  I  am  utterly- 
unable  to  perceive.  AVe  may  grant  that  they  Ayould  not 
have  added  to  the  sacred  Canon  books  which  they  did  not 
believe  to  be  inspired ;  but  then  the  question  is,  whether  their 
belief  was  ahvays  founded  on  apostolic  teaching?  Might 
they  not  be  mistaken  as  to  what  Christ  and  His  Apostles 
had  actually  taught?  If  they  were  fallible,  liable  to  be 
misled  by  designing  men,  the  crafts  of  the  Devil  or  the 
deceitful  workings  of  their  own  hearts,  they  might  have 
been  perfectly  sincere  and  yet  have  received  error  in  the 
place  of  truth.  Even  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and 
among  the  congregations  collected  by  their  labours,  the 
mystery  of  iniquity  had  begun  to  work ;  and  none  can  read 
the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Galatians  without  being  deeply 
convinced  that  the  faith  of  professing  Christians  was  not 
always  adjusted  to  the  standard  of  inspired  instruction. 
Paul  admonishes  the  Ephesian  Elders  that  even  among 
themselves  should  men  arise  speaking  perverse  things,  to 
draw  disciples  after  them ;  and  the  exhortations  to  the  seven 
churches  of  Asia  reveal  anything  but  a  necessary  connec- 
tion between  the  actual  belief  of  the  people  and  the  lessons 
which  they  had  received  from  inspired  teachers.  The  faith, 
consequently,  of  the  primitive  Christians  is  an  exceedingly 
uncertain  medium  through  which  to  arrive  at  the  doctrines 
of  Christ  and  His  Apostles ;  and  yet,  unless  there  be  an 
exact  correspondence  between  them — unless  the  one  answers 
to  the  other  as  an  image  corresponds  to  its  original,  the  seal 
to  its  impression,  the  purpose  of  your  argument  is  not 
answered.  You  infer  that  such  must  have  been  the  doctrine 
of  Christ  because  such  was  the  faith  of  the  Church.  Xow, 
if  there  be  any  possibility  of  error  or  decei^tion  on  the  jiart 
of  the  Church,  the  force  of  your  conclusion  is  proportionably 
weakened.  It  may  be  true,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  tliat  the 
Primitive  Church  did  not  receive  any  other  Canon  but  that 
of  Christ  and  His  Apostles ;  but  then,  in  order  to  determine 


Lett.  XII.]       APOCRYPHA    AND    PRIMITIVE    CHURCH.         607 

this  point,  it  must  be  previously  known  what  books  our 
Saviour  received  and  what  books  the  Primitive  Church 
received.  When  the  documents  inckided  in  their  respective 
Canons  are  fully  ascertained,  and  each  Canon  becomes  con- 
sequently known,  we  can  then  compare  them  and  pronounce 
upon  their  mutual  agreement  or  discrepancy.  But  if  one 
of  the  Canons  be  unknown,  I  see  no  clue  by  which  a  know- 
ledge of  the  other  will  enable  us  to  resolve  our  difficulties. 
It  is  true  that  the  Canon  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles  ought 
to  be  the  Canon  of  the  Christian  Church,  but  he  who  should 
reason  from  right  to  reality,  from  what  should  be  to  what 
is,  will  find  himself  halting  on  many  a  lame  conclusion. 
Now,  in  the  present  case  your  professed  design  is  to  ascertain 
what  books  Christ  and  His  Apostles  delivered  to  the  Church 
as  the  Word  of  God:  this  is  the  unknown  fact  to  be  settled. 
You  attempt  to  settle  it  by  appealing  to  the  faith  of  the 
primitive  Christians.  Your  argument,  of  course,  depends 
on  the  assumption  that  the  primitive  Christians  believed 
nothing  but  what  Christ  and  His  Apostles  actually  taught ; 
and  of  this  assumption  the  only  proof  which  you  furnish 
goes  no  farther  than  to  establish  the  sincerity  of  the  prim- 
itive disciples — a  point  which  can  answer  your  purpose  only 
on  the  gratuitous  hypothesis  that  none  can  be  in  error  and 
at  the  same  time  sincere,  or  that  none  can  be  deceived  with- 
out being  also  necessarily  hypocrites.  When  you  shall  have 
succeeded  in  proving  that  honesty  and  mistake  are  incompa- 
tible terms,  mutually  contradictory  and  destructive  of  each 
other,  then,  and  not  till  then,  your  argument  will  have 
something  of  logical  coherence.  To  put  the  weakness  of 
your  reasoning  in  a  clearer  light :  if  it  were  admitted — 
which,  however,  cannot  be  done  consistently  with  truth — 
that  the  early  Christians  did,  in  fact,  believe  that  the  Apoc- 
ryphal books  were  inspired,  this  would  be  a  moral  phe- 
nomenon demanding  explanation.  In  all  reasoning  upon 
testimony  the  principle  of  cause  and  effect  lies  at  the  basis 
of  the  process.  A  witness  simply  puts  us  in  possession  of 
the  convictions  of  his  own  mind.     These  convictions  are  an 


608    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.    [Lett.  XII. 

effect  for  which  the  constitution  of  our  nature  prompts  us 
to  seek  an  adequate  cause ;  and  when  no  other  satisfactory 
solution  can  be  given  but  the  reality  of  the  facts  to  which 
he  himself  ascribes  his  impressions,  then  we  admit  the  ex- 
istence of  the  facts.  But  if  any  other  cause  can  be  assigned 
the  testimony  should  not  command  our  assent.  If  a  man 
afflicted  with  the  jaundice  should  testify  that  the  walls  of 
a  room  were  yellow,  we  might  be  fully  persuaded  of  the 
sincerity  of  his  own  belief;  but  as  an  adequate  cause,  apart 
from  the  reality  of  the  fact,  could  be  assigned  for  his  con- 
viction, we  should  not  feel  bound  to  receive  his  statement. 
Two  questions,  consequently,  must  always  arise  in  estimat- 
ing the  value  of  testimony :  the  first  respects  the  sincer- 
ity of  the  witnesses — do  they  or  do  they  not  express  the 
real  impressions  that  have  been  made  upon  their  own  minds? 
The  second  respects  the  cause  of  these  convictions — are  there 
any  known  principles  which  can  account  for  them  without 
an  admission  of  the  facts  to  which  the  witnesses  attribute 
them  ?  When  we  are  satisfied  that  the  witnesses  are  sin- 
cere, and  that  no  causes  apart  from  the  reality  of  the  facts 
can  be  assigned  in  the  case,  then  the  testimony  is  entitled  to 
be  received  without  hesitation.  Such  being  the  laws  which 
regulate  the  value  of  testimony,  you  were  bound,  after 
having  shown  that  the  primitive  Christians  believed  the 
Apocrypha  to  be  inspired — you  were  bound  to  show,  in  ad- 
dition, that  no  other  assignable  cause  could  satisfactorily 
account  for  this  belief,  this  moral  effect,  but  the  authoritj' 
of  Christ  and  His  Apostles. 

In  the  mean  time,  it  may  be  well  to  apprize  you  of  the 
fact  that  the  actual  faith  of  the  Primitive  Church,  as  such,  is 
not  received  by  Protestants  as  an  authoritative  standard  of 
truth.  There  is  always  a  previous  inquiry  into  the  grounds 
of  that  faith,  and  if  they  should  be  found  weak,  futile  or 
insufficient,  thinking  men  feel  no  more  obligation  to  reason 
badly  because  good  men  before  them  have  done  so,  than  to 
disregard  any  of  the  sacred  principles  of  justice  because 
distinguished   saints   have  fallen  into  grievous  sins.     The 


Lett.  XIT.]       APOCRYPHA    AND    PRIMITIVE   CHURCH.        609 

Church  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  present  day  does  not  believe 
in  the  Divine  authority  of  those  books  Avhich  it  admits  to 
be  canonical  because  the  ancient  Church  regarded  them  in 
the  same  light,  but  because  there  is  satisfactory  evidence 
that  they  were  composed  by  men  who  wrote  as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  esteem  in  which  they  were 
held  by  the  first  Christians  amounts  to  nothing  more  than  a 
presumption  that  there  was  sufficient  proof  of  their  super- 
natural origin ;  but  that  proof  itself,  and  not  the  effect  which 
it  had  on  the  minds  of  others,  must  be  tiie  ultimate  histori- 
cal ground  of  foith.  Historical  testimony  puts  us  in  pos- 
session of  this  proof;  it  lays  before  us  the  facts  upon  which 
the  primitive  Christians  formed  their  judgment,  and  puts  us 
as  nearly  as  j)ossible  in  the  same  relative  situation  with 
themselves,  so  that  we  can  form  an  opinion  upon  the  same 
evidence  which  was  first  submitted  to  their  understandings. 
History  bridges  over  the  chasm  of  time,  and  makes  us  con- 
temporary with  the  events  which  it  sets  in  order  before  us. 
Hence,  it  is  absolutely  false  to  say  that  the  Church  now 
receives  any  document  as  inspired  because  the  Church 
anciently  received  it ;  the  Church  now  has  the  same  facts 
in  history  which  the  Church  anciently  saw  and  heard,  and 
consequently  founds  its  judgment  ujjon  the  same  data.  The 
only  difference  is  in  regard  to  the  medium  through  which 
the  knowledge  of  the  facts  is  reached,  but  the  ultimate 
ground  of  faith  is  the  same  in  both  cases.  If,  for  example, 
I  were  asked  why  I  receive  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the 
Romans  as  an  inspired  composition,  I  would  answer  not 
because  the  Primitive  Church  received  it — that  would  only 
create  a  presumption  in  its  favour — but  because  there  is  sat- 
isfactory proof  that  Paul  wrote  it,  and  equally  conclusive 
evidence  that  Paul  attested  by  miracles  his  supernatural 
commission  as  a  teacher  of  the  faithful.  Now,  sir,  if  you 
could  adduce  any  adequate  historical  testimony  that  Christ 
and  His  Apostles  gave  their  sanction  to  the  Apocryplia  as 
inspired  compositions,  you  would  then  be  able  to  adduce 
a  sufficient  ground  of  faith.     I  have  already  admitted  that 

Vol.  III.— 39 


610     ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.   [Lett.  XII. 

wherever  a  document  can  be  shown  to  have  been  written  by- 
persons  empowered  to  achieve  miracles  as  the  proofs  of  their 
commission,  or  wherever  a  document  can  be  shown  to  have 
received  the  approbation  and  sanction  of  tliose  who  were 
supei'uaturally  commissioned,  the  historical  evidence  of  its 
inspiration  is  complete.  If  you  could,  therefore,  produce 
from  the  sacred  Scriptures,  or  from  any  contemporary  writers 
worthy  of  credit,  direct  statements  of  the  fact,  or  of  other 
facts  necessarily  involving  it,  that  Christ  and  His  Apostles 
delivered  to  the  Church  the  documents  in  question  as  the 
Word  of  God,  you  would  then  allege  something  to  the  pur- 
pose. But,  sir,  not  a  particle  of  such  testimony  have  you 
been  able  to  adduce.  You  have  simply  inquired  what  the 
Primitive  Church  believed,  and  without  pausing  to  investi- 
gate the  grounds  of  its  belief  or  the  possibility  of  mistake, 
you  have  boldly  assumed  that  it  could  believe  nothing  but 
what  it  had  received  upon  inspired  authority. 

But,  in  the  second  place,  your  syllogism  is  just  as  faulty  in 
the  minor  as  it  is  in  the  major  proposition.  It  so  happens, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  the  primitive  Christians  did  not 
receive  any  other  Canon  but  that  of  the  Jews,  which  was  also 
the  Canon  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles.  They  might  have 
received  another,  so  that  their  endorsement  of  a  book  is  no 
necessary  proof  of  its  Divine  authority,  but  as  it  is  histori- 
cally true  that  they  did  not,  your  minor  proposition  is  utterly 
without  support,  and  my  original  assertion,  that  the  unbroken 
testimony  of  the  Church  for  four  centuries  is  against  the 
inspiration  of  the  Apocrypha,  remains  unshaken,  notwith- 
standing your  multiplied  quotations  and  elaborate  trifling  iu 
attempting  to  refute  it. 


Lett.  XIII.]      APOCRYPHA — VERSIONS   OF   SCRIPTURE.      611 


LETTER  XIII. 

THE   APOCRYPHA   AND    ANCIENT   VERSIONS   OF    SCRIPTURE— THE 
APOCRYPHA  AND  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS. 

That  the  Primitive  Church  ascribed  to  the  Apocrypha 
the  same  canonical  authority  which  they  were  accustomed  to 
attribute  to  Moses,  the  Prophets  and  the  Psahus,  you  endea- 
vour to  collect  from  the  tacts  that  these  books  were  em- 
bodied in  all  the  ancient  versions  of  the  Bible  and  quoted 
by  the  Fathers,  and  not  only  quoted,  but  quoted  distinctly 
as  sacred  Scripture.  "  The  manner,"  you  inform  us,  "  in 
which  the  Christians  of  the  first  four  centuries  acted  in 
regard  to  these  writings  shows  that  they  were  left  to  them 
by  the  Apostles  as  inspired."  The  first  peculiarity  in  their 
manner  of  acting  which  discloses  the  sentiments  of  the 
primitive  disciples  is  to  be  found  in  the  circumstance  which 
you  have  gratuitously  assumed,  "  that  all  these  books,  or 
parts  of  books,  were  contained  in  the  Old  Testament  as 
used  by  the  early  Christians  in  the  infancy  of  the  Church." 

I  shall  not  here  interrupt  the  tenor  of  the  argument  to 
expose  the  rashness  of  your  inferences  on  the  subject  of 
some  of  these  ancient  versions.  It  is  enough  for  my  pres- 
ent purpose  to  observe  that  upon  the  supposition  that  the 
facts  are  precisely  as  you  have  stated  them  to  be,  the  con- 
clusion by  no  means  follows  which  you  were  anxious  to 
deduce.  You  have  already  expressed  the  opinion  that  ante- 
cedently to  the  advent  of  the  Saviour,  when  there  was  no 
satisfactory  proof  of  their  Divine  inspiration  and  no  tribu- 
nal commissioned  to  enlarge  the  dimensions  of  the  Canon, 
and  when  of  course  they  could  not  have  been  received  as 
any  portion  of  the  rule  of  faith,  these  very  books  were  yet 
embodied  in  the  version  of  the  Seventy.  How  does  it  hap- 
pen that  the  Hellenistic  Jews  could  incorporate  into  their 
translation  of  the  canonical  books  others  which  they  were 
known  not  to  receive  as  inspired,  while  the  same  privilege 


6T2   ARGUMENTS   FOE   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  XIII. 

is  denied  to  the  Christian  Church  ?  "SAliat  is  there  in  tlio 
change  of  dispensation  that  shall  make  it  a  certain  proof 
after  the  advent  of  Christ  that  a  work  is  believed  to  be 
inspired  if  found  in  juxtaposition  to  those  which  are  con- 
fessed to  be  Divine,  when  the  same  collocation  under  the 
previous  economy  carried  no  such  inference  along  with  it  ? 
I  had  always  supposed  that  the. major  proposition  of  an 
argument  should  be  universally  true,  and  that  when  any 
particular  case  is  adduced  which  proves  an  exception  to  its 
general  application,  the  argument  ceases  to  be  conclusive. 
Reasoning  is  only  a  felicitous  method  of  applying  to  the 
parts  that  which  is  confessed  to  be  true  of  the  whole,  and 
when  it  is  found  from  experience  or  any  other  source  of 
information  that  the  process  of  arrangement  has  been  wrong, 
and  that  the  separate  elements  do  not  possess  the  properties 
which  constitute  the  class,  the  leading  proposition  becomes 
false  and  the  argument  is  said  to  be  refuted.  In  the  pres- 
ent case  you  evidently  reason  on  the  principle  that  what- 
ever books  are  embraced  in  the  same  volume  with  those 
which  are  confessedly  inspired  must  be  believed  to  be  also 
inspired  by  those  who  sanction  the  combination.  Now,  to 
assert  that  there  are  numerous  instances  in  which  such  a 
mixture  of  the  human  and  Divine  has  been  sanctioned  as 
the  proposition  supposes  to  be  impossible  is  to  accumulate 
refutations  on  each  other.  In  addition  to  the  case  of  the 
Jews,  which  has  already  been  adduced,  the  Greeks  to  this 
day  reject  the  Apocrypha  from  the  Canon,  although  they 
give  them  a  place  in  their  copies  of  the  Scriptures.  Who 
believes  that  because  these  books  are  found  in  the  author- 
ized English  translation  of  the  Bible,  therefore  the  Church 
of  England  receives  them  as  inspired?  or  that  the  large 
body  of  Protestant  churches  which  adopt  that  translation 
defers  to  their  authority  as  supreme?  There  can  be  little 
doubt  that  the  incorporation  of  the  Apocrypha  with  the 
Septuagint  was  the  real  cause  of  their  being  subsequently 
embraced  in  the  later  translations  of  the  Scriptures.  The 
old  Italic  version  was  made  from  that  of  the  Seventy,  ami 


Lett.  XIII.]      APOCRYPHA — VERSIONS   OF   SCRIPTURE.      613 

of  course  contained  precisely  the  same  books  witli  the  origi- 
nal from  which  it  was  made.  The  Hebrew  Scriptures  were 
"  quite  inaccessible,"  says  Bishop  JNIarsh,  "  to  Latin  transla- 
tors in  Europe  and  Africa  during  the  first  three  centuries. 
In  those  ages  the  Jews  themselves  who  inhabited  Greece, 
Italy  and  Africa  read  the  Old  Testament  in  the  Greek  ver- 
sion. Thus  the  Greek  Bjble  became  to  the  Latin  Christians 
a  kind  of  original  from  which  they  derived'  their  own  trans- 
lations of  the  Scriptures."  ^  If  the  Peschito  version  was, 
as  it  is  said  to  have  been,  made  directly  from  the  Hebrew, 
it  could  not  originally  have  contained  the  Apocrypha ;  these 
books  must  have  been  subsequently  added  from  the  Greek 
copies  iu  which  they  w^ere  circulated.  Whatever  currency, 
consequently,  these  spurious  documents  obtained  among  the 
early  Christians  is  due  to  the  Septuagint;  and  as  upon  your 
own  hypothesis  their  insertion  in  that  version  took  place 
previously  to  the  advent  of  Christ,  when  the  books  were 
confessed  not  to  be  inspired,  we  must  look  for  other  motives 
besides  an  appeal  to  Divine  authority  for  the  amalgamation 
of  human  and  Divine  in  the  same  volume.  If,  however, 
you  prefer  the  hypothesis  that  the  mixture  in  question  was 
made  subsequently  to  the  incarnation  of  the  Saviour,  after 
the  Apostles  and  apostolic  Fathers  had  fallen  asleep,  the 
phenomenon  can  be  satisfactorily  explained  without  resort- 
ing to  the  fiction  of  inspiration. 

There  are  obvious  considerations,  apart  from  any  convic- 
tions of  Divine  authority,  that  would  lead  the  Christians,  esj)e- 
cially  of  the  third  century,  as  well  as  the  Jews,  to  a  diligent 
study  of  these  books.  They  do  not  seem  to  have  been  much 
in  vogue  in  the  Christian  Church  for  the  first  two  centuries 
after  Christ.  We  find  scarcely  any  allusion  to  them  in  the 
apostolic  Fathers,  no  quotations  in  Justin  Martyr,  and  no 
certain  proof  that  they  were  generally  read.  But  a  mystic 
spirit  soon  corrupted  the  piety  of  the  Church — a  spirit  of 
dreamy  superstition,  similar  to  that  whicli  Lightfoot  attrib- 
utes to  the  Jews  of  the  second  Temple,  which  these  books 
1  Marsh,  Comp.  View,  chap,  vi.,  p.  99. 


61  t   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  XIII. 

were  well  adapted  to  foster,  and  which,  as  it  gained  ground, 
would  prompt  its  victims  to  regard  their  follies  as  signal 
illustrations  of  'piety.  This  congeniality  with  a  false  spirit 
of  religion,  coupled  with  their  relations  to  the  history  of 
God's  ancient  people,  would  give  them  a  popularity  which 
some  of  them  certainly  did  not  deserve;  they  would  be  re- 
garded with  that  sort  of  religiou^  veneration  M'ith  which 
the  Christians  of  the  present  day  contemplate  the  works  of 
distinguished  divines,  and  would  be  bound  up  in  the  same 
volume  with  their  Bibles,  for  convenience  of  reference,  just 
as  the  Scotch  combine  in  the  same  book  the  Scriptures  of 
God  and  the  metrical  version  of  the  Psalms  by  Rouse. 

It  may  be  well  to  observe,  moreover,  that  this  argument 
from  ancient  versions  proves  entirely  too  much ;  it  proves, 
if  it  prove  anything,  that  the  books  which  Rome  herself 
rejects  as  Apocryphal  must  be  a  part  of  the  Canon.  The 
third  and  fourth  books  of  Esdras,  together  with  the  Prayer 
of  Manasses,  are  actually  embodied  in  that  very  translation 
of  the  Bible  which  the  Council  of  Trent  pronounces  to  be 
authentic.^  The  fourth  book  of  Esdras,  though  not  found 
in  the  Septuagint,  is  found  in  existing  manuscripts  of  the 
Vulgate.  The  third  book  of  Esdras  occurs  in  the  principal 
copies  of  the  Septuagint,  with  the  exception  of  the  Coraplu- 
tensian  edition  and  those  which  are  derived  from  it.  The 
Prayer  of  Manasses  is  inserted  in  manuscripts  of  the  Vul- 
gate at  the  end  of  Chronicles,  and  is  certainly  found  in 
some  editions  of  the  Septuagint.  The  third  book  of  ]\Iac- 
cabees,  too,  is  to  be  found  in  the  most  ancient  manuscripts 
of  the  Septuagint  now  extant.  Why,  then,  are  not  these 
books  canonical  ?  They  are  introduced  into  approved  copies 
of  the  Bible;  they  occur  in  translations  which  the  early 
Christians  were  accustomed  to  consult ;  and  if  they  could 
be  embodied  in  the  same  volume  with  the  canonical  Scrip- 
tures without  being  received  as  inspired,  I  see  not  why  the 
same  privilege  might  not  be  extended  to  Wisdom,  Tobit 
and  Judith. 

>  Marsh,  Comp.  ^'ie^v,  chap,  vi.,  ppJOS,  109  (note). 


Lett.  XIII.]     APOCRYPHA   AND    APOSTOLIC   FATHERS.      615 

Dismissing,  therefore,  your  argument  from  the  case  of  the 
ancient  versions  as  less  than  nothing  and  altogether  lighter 
than  vanity,  I  proceed  to  that  upon  wliich  Bellarmine  rests 
the  strength  of  your  cause — the  quotations  from  the  Chris- 
tian Fathers.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  you  have  not,  like 
this  distinguished  Jesuit,  precisely  specified  the  point  upon 
which  the  discussion  should  be  made  to  -turn.  I  am  at  ai 
loss  to  understand  whether  you  regard  a  quotation,  though 
unaccompanied  with  any  expressions  of  respect  that  would 
seem  to  imply  inspiration,  as  sufficient  proof,  or  whether  you 
design  to  confine  the  argument  to  those  allusions  in  which 
the  Apocrypha  are  said  to  be  Divine.  You  are  just  as  pro- 
fuse in  bringing  forward  instances  in  which  there  is  nothing 
stronger  than  a  mere  accommodation  of  the  words  of  the 
Apocrypha,  as  in  adducing  passages  which  seem  to  invest 
them  with  a  sacred  authority.  Bellarmine,  on  the  other 
hand,  restricted  the  argument  to  those  quotations  in  which 
these  works  are  cited  as  Divine}  I  have  already  shown  that 
mere  quotations  can  prove  nothing  but  the  existence  of  a 
book,  and  to  accommodate  a  passage  is  only  to  endorse  the 
particular  sentiment  which  it  contains,  without  any  neces- 
sary approbation  of  the  work  itself. 

To  prove  that  the  Fathers  quoted  the  Apocrypha  is  a 
very  different  thing  from  proving  that  they  believed  these 
documents  to  be  infallible  standards  of  faith.  Paul  quoted 
the  heatlien  poets,  and  the  ancient  infidels  quoted,  in  scorn, 
the  canonical  Scriptures.  It  is  therefore  truly  unfortunate 
for  your  cause  that  you  have  loaded  your  articles  with  nu- 
merous extracts,  which,  if  they  were  faithfully  given — in 
many  cases  they  are  not — from  the  original  works  of  the 
Fathers,  would  prove  nothing  more  than  that  they  had  read 
the  books  which  Rome  pronounces  to  be  inspired,  and 
adopted  from  them  sentiments   and   opinions  which  they 

^  Disputat.  de  Cont.,  lib.  i.,  c.  x.,  vol.  i.,  p.  34.  His  words  are:  "  Apos- 
toli  enim  poterant  sine  aliis  te-stimoniis  declarare  libros  illos  esse  canonicos, 
quod  et  fecerunt:  aliocjui  nunquam  Cyprianus  et  Clemens,  et  alii  quos 
citabimus,  tam  constanter  dixissent  eos  esse  Divinos." 


616    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  XIIL 

deemed  to  be  applicable  to  their  own  purposes.  By  the 
same  method  of  reasoning,  there  is  hardly  a  Protestant 
writer  of  any  note  who  might  not  be  convicted  of  acceding 
to  the  authority  of  the  Romish  canon.  If  you  will  turn  to 
the  works  of  Bishop  Butler,  and  consult  his  fourth  sermon 
upon  the  Government  of  the  Tongue,  you  will  find,  in  the 
•very  small  compass  of  that  single  discourse,  more  extracts 
from  the  Apocryphal  books  than  you  have  been  able  to 
collect  from  all  the  writings  of  the  apostolic  Fathers.  The 
fifth  sermon  concludes,  as  the  fourth  had  done,  with  a  pas- 
sage from  the  son  of  Sirach;  and  the  sixth  almost  opens 
with  one.  In  the  sermons  of  Donne,  Barrow  and  Jeremy 
Taylor  we  find  all  classes  of  books,  heathen  and  Christian, 
gay  and  grave,  lively  and  severe,  indiscriminately  quoted 
in  the  margin ;  and  yet  these  men  would  have  thoi^ght  it  a 
most  preposterous  conclusion  that  because  they  enriched 
their  own  compositions,  plenis  manibus,  with  the  spoils  of 
others,  therefore  they  believed  in  the  Divine  inspiration  of 
Aristotle  and  Tully,  Lactantius  and  Origen,  Euripides  and 
Horace.  Even  the  humble  writer  of  these  lines  could  not 
escape  the  imputation  of  Romanism  if  to  quote  a  book  and 
to  believe  it  inspired  are  necessarily  connected.  In  his  own 
published  sermon  upon  the  Vanity  and  Glory  of  Man, 
written  long  after  his  essay  on  the  Apocrypha  had  been 
anonymously  committed  to  the  press,  an  extract  is  made 
from  the  book  of  Wisdom;  and  in  his  unpublished  lectures 
upon  the  Origin  and  Progress  of  Idolatry  the  splendid 
Apocryphal  passage  on  the  same  subject  is  introduced  with 
commendation  and  applause.  If  bare  quotations  are  to  be 
regarded  as  satisfactory  proofs  of  a  supernatural  origin,  the 
cause  of  Rome  can  be  sustained  by  "  reasons  as  plentiful  as 
blackberries."  It  is  evident,  however,  that  quotations  them- 
selves can  prove  nothing  to  the  purpose;  it  is  the  manner 
in  which  the  quotations  are  made  and  the  ends  to  which 
they  are  applied.  If  the  Apocrypha  are  not  quoted  as 
infallible  standards  of  faith  of  equal  authority  with  Moses, 
the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms,  or  if  there  are  not  circuui- 


Lett.  XIII.]     APOCRYrHA    AND    APOSTOLIC   FATHERS.      617 

stances  attending  the  quotations  which  show  indisputably 
that  the  writers  regarded  them  as  the  AVord  of  God,  from 
whose  decision  there  M'as  no  appeal,  nothing  can  be  gathered 
from  the  fact  in  behalf  of  these  works  which  could  not 
also  be  collected  from  similar  quotations  in  behalf  of  the 
heathen  philosophers  and  poets.  Why  the  ancient  Fathers 
should  be  denied  the  privilege,  conceded  to  all  writers,  of 
adorning  their  compositions  Avith  elegant  expressions  or 
judicious  sentiments  which  might  chance  to  strike  them  in 
the  compass  of  their  reading,  it  is  difficult  for  me  to  com- 
prehend. It  is  certainly  ridiculous  to  say  that  because  a 
man  writes  upon  religious  subjects  he  shall  not  lay  all  the 
resources  of  his  knowledge  under  tribute  to  supply  him 
with  apt  similitudes  or  fitting  illustrations.  Surely  he  is 
permitted  to  bring  the  treasures  of  his  learning  to  the  feet 
of  his  Redeemer,  and  to  honour  his  Master  with  the  spoils 
which  he  has  gathered  in  his  literary  excursions. 

From  the  apostolic  Fathers  you  have  pretended  to  present 
us  with  nothing  but  quotations,  unaccompanied  with  a  single 
expression  that  indicates  the  light  in  which  the  original 
works  were  regarded.  If,  therefore,  your  extracts  had  been 
accurate,  you  would  have  gained  nothing  but  the  gratifica- 
tion which  springs  from  the  display  of  learning.  But  by 
some  strange  fatality  of  blundering,  which  seems  like  an 
evil  genius  to  attend  you,  you  have  only  exhibited  your 
misconceptions  of  the  meaning  of  the  Fathers  and  of  the 
tongue  in  which  their  works  were  written.  That  the  reader 
may  be  able  to  form  an  adequate  estimate  of  the  nature  and 
value  of  your  services  as  a  literary  critic,  I  shall  examine 
your  extracts  from  the  apostolic  Fathers  with  a  degree  of 
attention  which  they  do  not  deserve.  And  first  from  Bar- 
nabas : 

Jiysc  yaf)  b  ~j)0(f7jTr^z  iTZC  zbv  Paya/jX'  Ohm  zf^  i"^'p,j  duzaJv 
ore  ,3z,3o'j/.eui'Tai  [-iooAr^v  -ovriodv  y.al}'  hiozwv  icrzni'ze;'  oij- 
acojizv  zbv  dixatoi^,  bzc  o'jaytr/^azu;  '^//^^^  i(Tzi.  But  what  saitli 
the  Prophet  against  Israel :  Woe  be  to  their  souls,  because 
they  have  taken  wicked  counsel  against  themselves,  saying, 


61 8    ARGUMENTS   FOR  APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  XIII. 

Let  US,  therefore,  lie  in  wait  for  the  just,  because  he  is  not 
for  your  turn. — Barnab.  EpisL,  §  6. 

"  This  passage,"  you  tell  us,  "  is  composed  of  two  texts, 
Isaias  iii.  9,  '  AVoe  to  their  soul,  for  evils  are  rendered  to 
them,'  and  Wisdom  ii.  12,  '  Let  us,  therefore,  lie  in  wait  for 
the  just,  because  he  is  not  for  our  turn.'  Here  St.  Barna- 
bas quotes  in  the  same  sentence,  and  as  of  equal  inspired 
authority,  the  book  of  Isaias,  contained  in  the  Canon  of  the 
Jews,  and  that  of  Wisdom ;  one  of  those  you  boldly  declare 
to  be  of  no  more  authority  than  Seneca's  Letters  or  Tully's 
Offices."  Will  the  reader  believe,  after  this  confident  state- 
ment, that  the  whole  passage  as  quoted  by  Barnabas  occiu-s 
almost  verbatim  in  the  book  of  Isaiah  as  found  in  the  version 
of  the  Seventy  ?  This,  as  xre  have  already  seen,  at  a  very 
early  period  supplanted  the  Hebrew  originals,  and  became 
itself  the  source  of  appeal  and  the  fountain  of  authority. 
This  venerable  translation  Barnabas  used,  and  from  it  has 
introduced  the  text  which  you  have  attributed  to  the  book 
of  Wisdom,  but  which  is  not  there  to  be  found.  In  your 
fourth  letter  you  seem  to  be  sensible  that  you  had  gone  a 
little  too  far  in  relation  to  this  passage,  and  if  you  had  gen- 
erously and  magnanimously  confessed  your  error,  I  should 
have  passed  the  matter  over  without  any  notice.  If  you 
had  not  obliquely  insinuated  a  doubt  whether  Barnabas 
drew  from  the  Septuagiut  or  not,  when  the  thing  is  as  plain 
as  anything  of  that  sort  can  possibly  be  made,  I  should 
have  given  you  credit  for  an  honesty  and  candour  to  which 
I  am  afraid  your  lame  apology  shows  you  not  to  be  entitled. 
"  Candour,"  you  tell  us,  with  a  ludicrous  gravity,  when  you 
were  about  to  act  with  a  very  questionable  regard  to  its 
precepts,  "  requires  that  I  should  make  a  remark  on  a  pas- 
sage in  my  last  letter."  The  passage  to  which  you  refer  is 
the  one  before  us;  now  what  is  the  remark?  "I  did  not 
at  that  moment  [when  writing  the  letter]  recollect  that  tiie 
passage  from  Isaias  was  one  in  which  the  translation  of  the 
Septuagiut  varies  from  the  Hebrew  as  we  have  it  now.  St. 
Barnabas  does  not  quote  the  Septuagint  exactly,  but  he 


Lett.  XIII.]     APOCRYPHA    AND    APOSTOLIC   FATHERS.      619 

approache.s  so  nearly  as  to  make  it  possible,  nay,  probable, 
that  the  difference  resulted  from  a  varying  reading  of  the 
text."  I  shall  now  give  the  passage  as  found  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint : 

Oual  zfi  (po'^f,  abzibv,  dcort  ^ei^ooXiuvrai  ^ooXtjV  7:ov7j()av 
xaff'  kauTcov,  iizoi^zs^'  orjcrco/isi^  rbv  ocxacoi',  ore  duayjir^aro;; 
■^fxiv  iazi. — Isaiah  iii.  9,  10. 

Now,  the  only  difference  in  the  passage  as  quoted  by  Bar- 
nabas and  as  found  in  Isaiah  is  in  the  fifth  word,  the  causal 
particle  dcozc,  of  which  in  Barnabas  the  first  syllable  is  want- 
ing. But  the  part  of  the  sentence  which  you  ascribe  in 
your  third  letter  to  Wisdom  is,  verbatim  et  literatim,  the 
same  in  the  Father  and  the  Prophet.  But  the  beauty  of 
the  whole  matter  lies  in  this :  in  your  third  letter  you  were 
absolutely  certain  that  a  text  was  quoted  from  Wisdom, 
when  the  principal  word  in  the  text  was  not  to  be  found 
in  the  passage  to  which  you  referred  us.  Barnabas  says, 
dtjacojisv  zbv  dcxaiou.  In  Wisdom  it  is  written,  kusdfjeoaio/nei^ 
8e  zbu  dixacov.  But  in  your  fourth  letter  the  omission  of  a 
single  syllable  is  sufficient  to  raise  a  doubt — makes  it  only 
probable  that  a  quotation  is  intended.  You  were  quite  con- 
fident that  a  sentence  is  taken  from  Wisdom  when  the  lead- 
ing word  is  changed,  another  word  added,  and  the  sense 
materially  altered ;  you  are  not  so  sure  that  it  can  be  from 
Isaiah  when  the  sense,  words  and  everything  but  one  poor 
l:j^rmless  syllable  are  exactly  preserved.  If,  sir,  you  could 
find  passages  in  the  Fathers  so  nearly  corresponding  to  pas- 
sages in  the  Apocrypha  as  those  of  Barnabas  and  Lsaiah,  we 
should  not  be  troubled  with  your  doubts ;  it  would  be  no 
longer  a  "  po-ssible,  nay,  a  probable,"  matter  that  they  were 
genuine  quotations  ;  we  should  hear  the  yell  of  triumph,  the 
chuckle  of  delight  and  the  insulting  tones  of  defiance.  If, 
however,  there  be  the  least  hesitation  in  admitting  that  Bar- 
nabas quoted  from  I.^aiah,  it  is  irresistibly  evident  that  he 
could  not  have  quoted  from  Wisdom.  Instead,  then,  of  its 
being  so  vciy  clear  that  the  good  Father  "  quotes  in  the  same 
sentence,  and  as  of  equal  inspired  authority,  the  book  of 


620    ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.    [LuTT.  XIII. 

Isaiah,  contained  in  the  Canon  of  the  Jews,  and  tluit  of 
Wisdom,  one  of  those  you  boldly  declare  to  be  of  no  more 
authority  than  Seneca's  Letters  or  Tully's  Offices,"  it  is 
absolutely  certain  that  no  allusion  is  made  whatever  to  the 
Apocryphal  production.  So  much  for  your  first  effort  to 
find  the  Apocrypha  in  the  Fathers ! 

Your  second  attempt  is  like  unto  your  first.  In  xix.'  of 
this  same  Epistle  of  Barnabas  a  passage  occurs  which  you 
have  discovered  to  be  a  quotation  from  the  book  of  Eccle- 
siasticus  (iv.  28,  31),  though  you  have  not  been  at  the  pains 
in  this  particular  instance  to  account  for  the  manifest  dis- 
crepancies between  the  son  of  Sirach  and  the  Father  by  a 
"varying  reading"  of  the  text.  It  is  never  doubtful  whe- 
ther the  Apocryj^ha  were  quoted,  but  as  Papists  have  a  cor- 
dial abhorrence  of  the  Bible,  they  are  slow  to  discern  quota- 
tions from  the  Canon  among  those  whom  they  honour. 

It  will  be  perceived,  upon  consulting  the  original,  that 
your  translation  of  Barnabas  and  the  Douay  version  of 
Ecclesiasticus,  which  you  have  copied  without  change,  are 
neither  of  them  consistent  with  the  original  text.  Accord- 
ing to  you,  there  are  three  coincidences  in  these  passages, 
which  show  that  the  one  must  have  been  taken  from  the 
other.  The  first  which  you  have  italicized  is  the  exhorta- 
tion to  strive,  but  unfortunately  no  such  exhortation  is  found 

^  The  translation  of  Barnabas  is  as  follows :  "  Thou  shalt  not  be  for- 
ward to  speak,  for  the  mouth  is  the  snare  of  death ;  strive  witli  thy  soi^l 
for  all  thy  might.  Eeach  not  out  thy  hand  to  receive,  and  withliold  it 
not  when  thou  shouldst  give."     The  originals  are  as  follows: 

Barnabas — Ovk  eaij  TzgdyXuaaoq'  naylg  yag  aTdjxa  davdrov.  O'aov  6'vvacai 
vneg  r;/v  ipvxijv  gov  dyvevGEig.  M?)  ylvov  irpoq  ftiv  to  Aa.3elv  £K-eivuv  7aq 
-(liQag^  TtpoQ  rfe  to  dovvai  cvcittuv. 

Ecclesiasticus — Euf  tov  davoTov  dyuviaai  irepl  Tf/c  d?.?/6eiac,  Kal  Krpwf  6 
9eof  noXsfiT/aei  vTrep  aov.  M^  yivov  rpaxvg  kv  yXuaari  aov,  km  vuOpbg  Koi 
TTapELjitvoQ  kv  TolQ  epyoig  gov.  My  egtu  f/  x^ig  gov  EKTeTaukvi]  kig  to  la^liVf 
mi  kv  T6J  anoSidduai  GweGTn'Apevr/. 

The  version  of  Ecclesiasticus  is  in  these  words:  "  Strive  for  justice  for  thy 
soul,  and  even  unto  death  figlit  for  justice,  and  God  will  overtlirow  thy 
enemies  for  thee.  Be  not  hasty  in  thy  tongue,  and  slack  and  remiss  in  thy 
works.  Let  not  thy  hand  be  stretched  out  to  receive,  and  shut  u-hen  tliou 
shouldst  give."     I  have  given  tlie  italics  as  found  in  A.  P.  F.'s  citation. 


Lett.  XIII.]     APOCRYPHA    AND    APOSTOLIC    FATHER.S.       621 

ill  Barnabas.  The  good  Fatlicr  i.s  insisting  upon  the  duties 
of  benevolence,  charity  and  temperance,  and  in  the  passage 
before  us  exhorts  his  readers  to  cidtivaie  chastity,  even  beyond 
the  resources  of  their  natural  strength.  There  is  nothing 
in  the  Greek  that  can  by  any  possibility  be  made  to  cor- 
respond with  the  sentence  in  your  version  :  "  Strive  with  thy 
soul  for  all  thy  might." 

The  conjectural  reading  of  Cotclerius,  Avhich  you  seem  to 
have  followed,  uKSp  rij^c  ^'^yj,Z  (^ou  dfcoueuasK:,  is  liable  to 
serious  objections.  In  the  first  place,  the  word  dycoi^e'jrrec!:, 
which  that  critic  would  substitute  for  the  received  reading, 
6.)'vvjatci;,  belongs  to  no  language  under  the  sun — most 
certainly  it  is  not  Greek;  it  is  justified  neither  by  the 
usage  of  the  classics,  the  authors  of  the  Septuagint  nor  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament.  The  legitimate  word  to 
express  the  idea  of  striving  is  dycovi^co.  In  the  second  place, 
the  new  reading  gives  a  sense  wholly  unsuited  to  the  con- 
nection in  which  the  passage  is  found.  It  occurs  among  a 
series  of  earnest  exhortations  to  specific  duties.  It  is  pre- 
ceded by  solemn  admonitions  against  severity  to  servants, 
avarice  and  volubility,  and  succeeded  by  directions  equally 
definite  and  precise.  Now,  to  introduce  an  abstract  jjropo- 
sition  which  covers  a  multitude  of  duties  in  the  midst  of 
specific,  definite  and  precise  instructions  is,  to  say  the  least 
of  it,  exceedingly  awkward.  The  old  reading,  which  makes 
the  passage  an  exhortation  to  the  practice  of  chastity,  suits 
the  nature  of  the  context,  and  on  that  account  is  to  be  de- 
cidedly preferred.  In  the  third  place,  there  is  no  need  of 
emendation.  The  preposition  seems  to  be  used  in  its  com- 
mon acceptation  Avhen  followed  by  the  accusative  of  excess, 
and  il"->y/^'-'  may  be  regarded  as  a  compendious  expression 
for  the  powers  of  the  man.  This  word  is  frequently  used 
to  designate  the  whole  man,  and  in  such  connections  is 
equivalent  to  a^{?/>w;roc,  and  every  Greek  scholar  knows 
that  Orrkp  nyt^nio-ov  may  be  properly  rendered  ^^  beyond 
human  strength."^ 

'  ^'igt•r,  De  Idiotismis,  c.  ix.,  sect.  9,  Reg.  1. 


622    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.   [Lett.  XIII. 

Turned  into  English,  and  substituting  the  imperative  for 
the  future,  the  passage  in  Barnabas  upon  which  you  found 
your  first  coincidence  is  simply  this  :  "  As  far  as  you  are  able, 
beyond  your  strength,  cultivate  chastity."  Employ  not  only 
your  natural  resources — these  alone  are  not  to  be  trusted — 
but  seek  a  strength  beyond  your  own,  even  the  all-sufficient 
grace  of  God.  What  now  in  the  corresponding  passage 
says  Jesus  the  son  of  Siracli  ? — "  Strive  for  truth  even  unto 
death :"  a  marvellous  coincidence  with  the  exhortation  to 
purity;  an  extraordinary  quotation,  when  there  is  not  a 
single  w^ord  in  the  two  clauses  alike!  One  is  exhorting  to 
stability  of  opinion,  and  the  other  to  innocence  of  life. 

The  next  coincidence  is  the  ex-hortation  in  relation  to  the 
tongue.  In  the  clauses  containing  this  advice  the  principal 
words,  as  found  in  Greek,  are  widely  different  in  their  mean- 
ing. Barnabas  uses  a  word  (Trpdyhoaao:;)  which  denotes  ex- 
cessive volubility,  and  he  gives  advice,  therefore,  precisely 
similar  to  that  recorded  in  the  first  chapter  and  nineteenth 
verse  of  the  Epistle  of  James :  "  Be  slow  to  speak."  The  son 
of  Sirach,  on  the  other  hand,  is  exhorting  to  civility  of  speech, 
and  uses  expressions  which,  Avhen  literally  translated,  amount 
to  this:  "Be  not  rough  with  your  tongue."  The  Latin 
version  surely  should  not  supersede  the  Greek,  and  I  know 
of  no  copies  of  the  Septuagint  that  give  the  reading  ra-j^u^ 
which  the  Latin  translators  seem  to  have  followed,*  though 
some  copies  do  give  d^riaah^.  Either  of  these  readings 
harmonizes  exactly  with  the  succeeding  verse :  "  Be  not  as 
a  lion  in  thy  house,  nor  frantic  among  thy  servants."  This 
sentence  illustrates  what  he  means  by  being  "  rough-tongucd ;" 
it  is  to  betray  the  fury  and  ferocity  of  the  lion  among  those 
who  are  dependent  upon  us.  The  coincidence,  then,  in  this 
passage  between  Barnabas  and  Ecclesiasticus  is  just  the 
coincidence  between  an  admonition  not  to  be  loquacious  or 
excessively  talkative,  and  an  admonition  to  overcome  acer- 

1  I  say,  seem  to  have  followed,  because  the  phrase  adopted  by  the  Vulgate, 
citatus  m  lingua,  is  evidently  susceptible  of  a  rendering  consistent  with  the 
common  reading  :  "  Be  not  violently  excited  in  thy  tongue  or  speech." 


Lett.  XIII.]     APOCRYPHA   AXD   APOSTOLIC   FATHERS.      623 

bity  of  speech.  One  says,  in  effect,  "  Be  silent ;"  the  other 
says,  "  Be  gentle."  It  is  very  obvious  that  the  sentiment 
in  Barnabas  was  suggested  by  the  passage  in  James  upon 
the  same  subject. 

The  last  coincidence  which  you  notice  is  in  reference  to 
what  is  said  of  illiberality,  or  avarice ;  and  here  I  freely 
admit  that  there  is  a  coincidence  both  of  expression  and 
sentiment,  but  a  coincidence  just  of  that  sort  which  betrays 
no  marks  of  design.  It  is  a  repetition  in  both  cases  of  one 
of  those  common  maxims  which  are  to  be  found  in  all 
writers  upon  morals.  The  sentiment  is  evidently  the  same 
with  that  which  Paul  attributes  to  the  Saviour  in  Acts  xx. 
35,  and  which  is  likewise  suggested  by  numerous  passages 
in  the  heathen  sages  of  antiquity.  Barnabas  says,  "  Extend 
not  thy  hand  to  receive;  close  it  not  to  give."  Our  Saviour 
says,  "It  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive."  In 
almost  precisely  the  same  words,  Artemidorus  says,  "To 
give  is  better  than  to  receive."^  vElian  says,  "It  is  better 
to  enrich  others  than  to  be  rich  ourselves,"^  and  a  similar 
sentiment  occurs  in  Aristotle.^  Coincidences  of  this  sort 
evidently  show  that  such  aphorisms  must  be  regarded  as  the 
spontaneous  suggestions  of  the  mind  to  those  who  observe, 
with  the  eye  of  the  moralist,  the  vicissitudes  of  men  and 
manners.  The  same  process  of  thought  by  which  they  be- 
come the  property  of  one  understanding  renders  them  the 
possession  of  others.  They  belong  to  those  common  topics 
which,  whoever  attempts  to  discuss,  will,  according  to  John- 
son, "find  unexpected  coincidences  of  his  thoughts  with 
those  of  other  writers,"  growing  out  of  the  very  nature 
of  the  subject,  and  implying  no  design  to  imitate  or  adopt. 

The  next  passage  with  which  you  favour  us  is  taken  from 
a  part  of  the  Epistle  of  Polycarp  to  the  Philippians,  which 
is  now  preserved  only  in  a  Latin  translation.     We  cannot 

^  Oneirocr.,  iv.  3.  2  jj  y  ^  ^ix.  13. 

*  Nichom.,  iv.  1.  For  many  striking  illustrations  of  the  same  sentiment 
to  be  found  in  various  authors,  the  reader  is  referred  to  Kninoel,  Wolfius 
and  Wetstein,  on  Acts  xx.  35. 


624    ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  XIII. 

consequently  determine  with  certainty  what  precisely  were 
the  words  which  the  Father  employed.  You  seem  to  be 
quite  certain  that  he  had  liis  eye  upon  Tobit  xii.  9:  "For 
alms  delivereth  from  death."  The  whole  passage  to  which 
you  refer  in  Polycarp  is  in  these  words:  "  Quum  potest  is 
benefacere  nolite  deferre :  quia  eleemosyna  de  morte  liberat. 
Omnes  vobis  invieem  subjecti  estate:  conversationem  ves- 
tram  irrejjrehensibilem  habentes  in  gentibus."^  In  com- 
menting upon  this  extract,  you  inform  us  that  "  St.  Poly- 
carp, like  St.  Barnabas,  quotes  in  the  same  breath  an  author  " 
whom  all  admit  to  be  inspired  (1  Peter  ii.  12),  and  another 
whom  Protestants  reject  (Tob.  xii.  9). 

If  we  admit,  in  the  first  place,  that  Polycarp  quoted  from 
Tobias,  it  will  by  no  means  follow  that  he  regarded  the  book 
as  inspired  or  canonical.  He  simply  accommodates  a  sen- 
tence which  suited  his  present  purpose,  just  as  Paul  adopted 
from  Menander  the  memorable  aphorism,  "Evil  communi- 
cations corrupt  good  manners."  But,  in  the  second  place, 
the  passage  in  Tobit  is  itself  a  quotation — a  literal  quotation 
from  the  tenth  chapter  and  second  verse  of  the  book  of 
Proverbs,  where  it  is  rendered  in  our  English  version, 
"Righteousness  delivereth  from  death."  The  coincidence 
of  the  sentiment  in  the  contexts  creates  a  presumption  that 
the  one  passage  was  suggested  by  the  other.  Solomon's 
context  is,  "  Treasures  of  wickedness  profit  nothing ;"  and 
that  of  Tobit  is,  "  It  is  better  to  give  alms  than  to  lay  up 
gold."  Solomon  adds,  "  Righteousness  delivereth  from 
death ;"  and  Tobit  adds  that  "  Alms  deliver  from  death." 
Now  the  Hebrew  Avord  which  Solomon  employs  for  right- 
eousness ('^p.lX)  is  not  unfrequently  rendered  by  the  Seventy, 
Ihr^iioawrj,  alms,  the  very  word  which  is  found  in  the  Greek 
translation  of  this  passage  of  Tobit.  If,  then,  Tobit  was 
originally  written  in  HebreAV,  as  was  doubtless  the  case, 
there  being  Hebrew  copies  extant  in  the  time  of  Origen, 
• 

1  The  passage  may  be  thus  translated :  "  When  it  is  in  your  power  to  do 
good,  defer  it  not,  for  alms  delivereth  from  death.  Be  all  of  you  subject  oue 
to  another,  having  your  co7iversation  honest  among  the  Gentiles." 


Lett.  XIII.]     APOCRYPHA    AND    APOSTOLIC   FATHERS.      625 

the  probability  i.s  that  the  same  word  which  occurs  in  Prov- 
erbs was  used  in  this  place.  The  Jews  Avere  accustomed 
to  interpret  the  passage  in  Solomon  precisely  as  it  has  been 
rendered  by  the  Greek  translators  of  Tobit.^  Hence,  in  the 
original,  this  text  of  Tobit  was  in  all  probability  an  exact 
quotation  from  the  corresponding  text  in  Proverbs.  It  is 
worthy  of  remark,  that  there  are  several  Hebrew  copies  of 
Tobit  extant  at  this  day,  translated,  it  is  generally  supposed, 
from  the  Greek.  Two  of  these  have  been  published — one 
by  Sebastian  Munster,  and  another  by  Paul  Fagius.  Hue- 
tius  possessed  another  in  manuscript,  differing  somewhat 
from  both,  but  according  more  closely  with  that  of  Munster. 
The  editions  of  Munster  and  Fagius  were  reprinted  in  the 
London  Polyglot,  and  may  be  found  in  the  fourth  volume 
of  Walton,  with  the  Latin  translations  of  these  distinguished 
scholars  annexed.  Both  these  copies,  in  the  passage  before 
us,  concur,  literatim  et  punctuatim,  with  the  passage  in  Prov- 
erbs, which  is  certainly  a  strong  presumption  that  Solo- 
mon's Hebrew  and  Tobit's  Greek  (or  rather  his  translator's) 
are  precisely  equivalent. 

Now  the  question  is,  Which  did  the  Father  quote — the 
Septuagint  translation  of  Solomon,  or  the  Greek  translation 
of  Tobit — since  both  were  versions  of  the  same  original? 
Your  answer  is,  that  he  quoted  Tobit.  How  can  that  be 
known?  His  own  Greek  is  lost,  and  we  have  no  means  of 
ascertaining  what  word  he .  used.  If  he  employed  the  term 
dcxacoaovfj,  righteousness,  then  Solomon,  as  found  in  the 
LXX.,  was  quoted;  if  he  employed  iX^fxoauvrj,  alms,  then 
the  Greek  version  of  Tobit  was  quoted.  How  shall  we 
determine  which  word  was  employed?  The  Latin  transla- 
tion affords  no  certain  clue,  since  either  term  might  be 
rendered  eleemosyne,  both  corresponding  as  they  do  to  the 
Hebrew,  and  the  one  always,  and  the  other  frequently,  mean- 
ing the  same  thing  as  eleemosyne. 

Your  next  passage  is  from  the  first  Epistle  of  Clement  to 
*  RosenmuUer  on  Prov.  x.  2. 
Vol.  III.— 40 


626    ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  XIII. 

the  Corinthians,  which,  you  say,  is  compounded  of  Wisdom 
xi.  22  and  xii.  12. 

There  is,  however,  an  exact  agreement  in  sense,  although 
not  a  verbal  correspondence,  between  this  passage  and  Daniel 
iv.  35  (32  in  LXX.),  and  Burton  is  of  opinion  that  Clement 
had  specially  in  his  eye  Isaiah  xlv.  9,  and  Rom..ix.  19,  20. 
The  idea  is  one  continually  occurring  in  the  canonical  Scrip- 
tures, and  I  think  it  doubtful  whether  the  Father  had  any 
particular  passage  in  his  mind,  for  his  words  exactly  tally 
with  no  one  text  or  combination  of  texts  in  the  Scriptures. 
I  shall  present,  however,  Clement,  Wisdom  and  Daniel,  that 
the  reader  may  judge  for  himself  whether  the  Father  had 
not  as  much  reference  to  Daniel  as  to  Wisdom ;  and  as  in 
this  case  I  do  not  object  to  your  translation,  I  shall  dispense 
with  the  original. 

Clement  says  :  "Who  shall  say  to  Him,  What  dost  Thou? 
or  who  shall  resist  the  power  of  His  strength  ?" 

Wisdom  :  "  For  who  shall  say  to  Thee,  What  hast  Thou 
done  ?  and  who  shall  resist  the  strength  of  Thy  arm  ?" 

Daniel  says :  "  He  doeth  according  to  His  will  in  the 
army  of  heaven  and  among  the  inhabitants  of  earth,  and 
none  can  stay  His  hand,  or  say  unto  Him,  What  dost  Thou  ?" 

The  coincidence  with  Daniel  is  more  striking  from  the 
succeeding  sentence  in  Clement:  "When  He  wills  and  as 
He  wills,  He  has  done  all  things,  and  none  of  His  decrees 
shall  pass  away." 

Your  last  reference  to  the  apostolic  Fathers  is  peculiarly 
unfortunate.  You  appeal  to  the  abstract  which  Clement 
has  given  us  of  the  history  of  Judith  in  the  fifty-fifth  sec- 
tion of  his  epistle,  and  would  insinuate  the  belief  that  there 
was  something  in  the  passage  to  favour  the  idea  tliat  the 
book  was  inspired.  But  what  is  the  fact  ?  The  history  of 
Judith  is  commended  as  a  laudable  example  in  the  same 
connection  with  the  story  of  CEdipus  and  the  heathen 
accounts  of  such  devoted  men  as  Codrus,  Lycurgus  and 
Scipio  Africanus.  A  wonderful  proof  of  inspiration,  truly! 
Clement,  no  doubt,  believed  the  authenticity  of  the  book, 


Lett.  XIIL]      APOCRYPHA    AND    APOSTOLIC    FATHERS.       627 

but  that  is  a  very  different  matter  from  its  Divine  inspira- 
tion. The  only  passage  in  the  reference  of  Clement  upon 
which  you  fasten  as  a  quotation  from  Judith  happens  very 
strangely  not  to  be  one.*  If  you  wnll  turn  to  the  originals, 
you  will  find  that  the  words  translated  "deliver"  are  very 
different  in  Judith  and  Clement,  and  the  epithet  with  which 
Judith  distinguished  the  Lord  is  omitted  by  the  Father,  and 
the  name  of  Holofernes  is  not  mentioned  in  Judith,  though 
it  is  in  Clement.  There  is  nothing,  I  may  add,  in  the 
account  which  Clement  gives  of  Esther  that  can  be  remotely 
tortured  into  proof  that  he  deemed  the  Apocryphal  portions 
to  be  inspired.  He  appeals  to  her  history  simply  as  true, 
and  intimates  nothing  of  the  origin  of  the  book. 

Such,  then,  are  your  abortive  efforts  to  find  a  tradition 
in  the  apostolic  Fathers  that  Christ  and  His  Apostles  deliv- 
ered the  Apocrypha  to  the  Christian  Church  as  the  oracles 
of  God.  If  the  Apostles  in  their  own  writings  said  noth- 
ing on  the  subject,  this  is  the  age  and  these  the  men  upon 
whom,  according  to  Bellarmine  himself,  we  must  rely.     Con- 

1 1  shall  give  the  whole  passage  as  it  appears  in  Archbishop's  Wake's 
Iranslation : 

"  Nay,  and  even  the  Gentiles  themselves  have  given  us  examples  of  this 
kind,  for  we  read  how  many  kings  and  princes,  in  times  of  ijestilence, 
being  warned  by  their  oracles,  have  given  up  themselves  unto  death,  that 
by  their  own  blood  they  might  deliver  their  country  from  destruction. 
Others  have  forsaken  their  cities,  that  .so  they  might  put  an  end  to  the 
seditions  of  them.  We  know  how  many  among  ourselves  have  given  up 
themselves  unto  bonds,  that  thereby  they  might  free  others  from  them ; 
others  have  sold  themselves  into  bondage,  that  they  might  feed  their 
brethren  with  the  price  of  themselves,  and  even  many  women,  being 
strengthened  by  the  grace  of  God,  have  done  many  glorious  and  manly 
things  on  such  occasions.  The  blessed  Judith,  when  her  city  was  besieged, 
desired  the  elders  that  they  would  suffer  her  to  go  into  the  camp  of  tiieir 
enemies,  and  she  went  out  exposing  herself  to  danger  for  the  love  she  bare 
to  her  country  and  lier  people  tliat  were  besieged,  and  the  Lord  delivered 
Holofernes  into  the  hands  of  a  woman.  Nor  did  Esther,  being  j^crfcct  in 
faith,  expose  herself  to  any  less  hazard  for  the  delivery  of  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel  in  danger  of  being  destroyed,  for  by  fasting  and  huml)ling 
herself  she  entreated  the  great  Maker  of  all  things,  the  God  of  spirits,  so 
that,  beholding  the  humility  of  her  soul,  he  delivered  the  people  for  whose 
sake  she  was  in  peril." — c.  Iv. 


628    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  XIV. 

temporary  writers  or  the  next  generation,  this  wily  Jesuit 
admits,  are  the  legitimate  witnesses  of  the  authenticity  of 
facts.  Here,  after  the  Apostles  had  fallen  asleej),  and  the 
last  of  those  who  had  seen  or  been  taught  by  them  is  gath- 
ered to  his  fathers,  there  remains  not  a  single  intimation, 
not  a  distant  hint,  not  even  a  remote  insinuation,  that  these 
spurious  documents  which  Rome  has  canonized  are  part  and 
parcel  of  our  faith.  Who  now  shall  tell  us  what  Christ 
and  His  Apostles  had  taught  ?  Who  shall  be  able  to  pene- 
trate the  past  when  the  only  light  which  could  guide  us  is 
withdrawn  for  ever  ?  AVhat  witnesses  shall  we  evoke  when 
those  alone  who  were  competent  to  testify  have  kept  the 
silence  of  the  grave  ?  It  is  perfectly  plain  that  if  up  to  the 
commencement  of  the  second  century  nothing  is  known 
about  any  such  instructions  on  the  subject  of  the  Apocry- 
pha as  you  attribute  to  Christ,  nothing  can  be  satisfactorily 
ascertained  afterward.  The  witnesses  are  too  far  removed 
from  the  facts.  That  nothing  was  known,  however,  when 
the  last  of  the  apostolic  Fathers  was  called  to  his  reward 
must  be  assumed  as  true  until  it  is  proved  to  be  false.  The 
silence  of  these  men  is  death  to  your  cause.  In  vain  have 
you  endeavoured  to  make  them  break  that  silence;  your 
efforts  have  only  recoiled  upon  your  own  character  as  a 
scholar  and  a  critic. 


LETTER  XIV. 

PATRISTIC   TERMS    APPLiED    TO    THE   APOCRYPHA. 

The  only  plausible  argument  in  support  of  your  propo- 
sition that  the  Primitive  Church  received  the  Apocrypha  as 
inspired  is  derived  from  the  fact  that  the  early  Fathers,  in 
introducing  quotations  from  these  disputed  books,  not  un fre- 
quently applied  to  them  the  same  expressions  with  which 
they  were  accustomed  to  distinguish  the  canonical  records. 


Lett.  XIV.l        PATRISTIC   TERMS    FOR    APOCRYPHA.  629 

Upon  tills  point,  as  I  have  hinted  already,  Bellarmine  prin- 
cipally dwelt.  He  refers,  as  you  have  done  in  your  fourth 
and  succeeding  letters,  to  passages  of  the  ancient  writers 
in  which  they  not  only  accommodate  the  language  of  the 
Apocrypha,  but  also  denominate  it  Scripture,  sometimes  with- 
out any  qualifying  epithet,  and  sometimes  with  the  titles, 
in  addition,  sacred,  holy  or  Divine.  To  infer  from  a  circum- 
stance like  this  that  they  regarded  these  works  as  possessed 
of  the  same  authority  with  Moses,  the  Prophets  and  the 
Psalms,  or  the  acknowledged  compositions  of  the  Apostles 
and  Evangelists,  is  to  be  guilty  of  a  gross  paralogism.  Those 
who  reason  in  this  way  manifestly  take  for  granted  that  the 
term  Scripture  is  exclusively  applicable  to  inspired  compo- 
sitions; but  where  is  the  evidence  of  this  fact?  It  is  freely 
conceded  that  this  is  a  common  and  familiar  designation  of 
the  canonical  books,  but  it  by  no  means  follows  that  it  is 
restricted  in  its  usage  exclusively  to  them.  To  say  that 
because  all  inspired  writings  are  Scripture,  therefore  all 
Scripture  must  also  be  necessarily  inspired,  is  to  assume  as 
true  what  will  be  found  with  ?l  single  exception  to  be  inva- 
riably false,  that  the  simple  converse  of  an  universal  affirm- 
ative proposition  is  equivalent  to  the  original  statement. 
Your  reasoning,  if  I  understand  it,  is  this :  the  Primitive 
Church  believed  the  Apocrypha  to  be  inspired  because  the 
Fathers  quoted  them  as  Scripture,  and  all  Scripture  must  be 
inspired  because  all  books  confessedly  inspired  are  denomi- 
nated Scripture.  This  specimen  of  logic  cannot  be  more 
happily  illustrated  than  by  a  parallel  case.  He  who  should 
ascribe  to  the  beasts  of  the  field  the  distinctive  excellences 
of  men  because  beasts  and  men  are  alike  said  to  be  subject 
to  decay,  would  reason  j)recisely  as  you  do  in  deducing  the 
Divine  authority  of  the  books  in  question  from  the  applica- 
tion to  them  of  the  same  titles  which  are  given  to  the  sacred 
Canon.  When  your  argument  is  stated  in  the  form  of  syl- 
logism, Avhich,  after  all,  is  the  real  test  of  conclusive  rea- 
soning, it  will  be  found  to  contain  the  miserable  fallacy  of 
an  undistributed    middle.      The   insj)ired  books  are  called 


630   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  XIV, 

Set' ijiture; the  Apocrypha  are  called  Scripture;  therefore  the 
Apocrypha  are  inspired.  Before  you  were  at  liberty  to 
draw  the  triumphant  conclusion  which  you  seem  to  think 
you  have  legitimately  reached,  it  was  evidently  incumbent 
upon  you  to  prove  (for  this  was  the  major  proposition  which 
the  case  required)  that  whatever  is  called  Scripture  or 
Divine  Scripture  must  have  been  written  under  the  super- 
natural influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  is  unquestion- 
ably the  basis  of  your  argument;  and  in  pity  to  the  cause 
which  you  had  undertaken  to  sustain,  you  should  have 
placed  it  upon  grounds  less  treacherous  and  deceitful  than 
its  being  the  converse  of  a  statement  universally  acknoAv- 
ledged  to  be  true.  Why,  therefore,  did  you  not  manfiilly 
meet  the  point,  and  prepare  the  way  for  your  multiplied 
quotations  by  showing  at  the  outset  what  is  certainly  far 
from  evident,  that  S&ripture  and  inspiration  are  coextensive 
in  their  import?  It  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  you 
should  have  expended  so  much  labour  in  evincing  that  the 
Apocrypha  were  often  characterized  by  this  appellation,  and 
yet  have  passed  in  profound  silence  the  other  proposition, 
which  was  equally  important,  that  all  books  so  denominated 
must  be  inspired.  Believe  me,  sir,  it  was  a  most  unfortu- 
nate oversight;  it  leaves  your  conclusion  halting  upon  a 
single  premiss — about  as  good  a  support  as  a  solitary  crutch 
to  a  man  destitute  of  legs.  All  that  your  extracts  are  capa- 
ble of  proving  may  be  fully  granted,  that  the  books  in  ques- 
tion were  often  distinguished  by  the  title  of  Scripture;  hut 
it  is  a  broad  leap  from  an  ambiguous  expression  of  this  sort 
to  the  conclusion  which  you  have  collected. 

There  are  several  considerations  which  indisputably  show 
that  such  appellations  as  Scripture,  Divine  Sd'ipture,  etc., 
were  generic  terms  as  used  among  the  Fathers,  having  a 
much  larger  extension  than  your  argument  seems  to  sup- 
pose. While  they  included  as  a  part  of  their  meaning  those 
works  which  were  acknowledged  to  be  the  offspring  of  the 
Holy  Ohost,  they  were  also  applied  to  other  departments 
of  composition,  in  which  no  other  spirit  was  conceived  to 


Lett.  XIV.]        PATRISTIC   TERMS    FOR    APOCRYPHA.  631 

predominate  but  the  spirit  of  devotion.  Scripture  itself  is 
synonymous  with  loriting,  and  is  consequently  an  appropri- 
ate term  for  designating  anything  recorded  with  the  pen. 
The  epithets  sacred,  holy  and  Divine  not  unfrequently  imply 
what  is  suited  to  produce,  to  stimulate  or  quicken  the  devout 
affections  of  the  heart;  and  the  whole  phrase,  Divine  Scrip- 
tu7'e,  was  employed  among  the  ancients  to  denote  that  pecu- 
liar class  of  composition  which  we  denominate  religious  in 
opposition  to  profane.  Even  in  our  own  tongue  the  word 
Scripture,  contrary  to  its  present  acceptation,  was  used 
among  the  earlier  writers  with  a  latitude  of  meaning  analo- 
gous to  that  which  obtained  in  the  language  from  which 
it  was  derived.  It  was  not  only  applied  to  any  Avritten 
document  whatever,  whether  sacred  or  profane,  but  was 
even  extended  to  inscriptions  on  a  tomb}  The  Greek 
word  ypafij  was  perhaps  more  general  than  the  Eng- 
lish term  writing,  as  it  embraced  not  only  the  work  of  the 
scribe  but  the  performance  of  the  painter.  We  are  so 
accustomed,  however,  to  the  definite  and  restricted  applica- 
tion of  the  word  Scripture,  and  particularly  the  plural 
Scriptures,  to  the  inspired  records  of  our  faith,  that  we 
experience  no  little  difficulty  in  divesting  ourselves  of  this 
association  when  the  term  is  mentioned,  and  in  going  back 
to  the  thoughts  and  feelings  of  an  age  when  it  suggested 
nothing  so  peculiar,  emphatic  and  precise.  The  Christian 
Fathers  themselves  seem  to  have  laboured  under  a  measure 
of  embarrassment  in  selecting  from  the  general  and  exten- 
sive phrases  which  were  best  adapted  to  the  purpose  appro- 
priate titles  of  distinction  and  respect  for  the  sacred  volume. 
If  there  had  been  any  one  phrase  which  the  usage  of  the 
language  would  have  authorized  them  to  adopt  as  a  specific 
and  exclusive  name  for  their  inspired  documents,  they  would 
hardly  have  accumulated  so  many  titles  as  are  found  scat- 
tered through  their  writings.  The  definite  word  would  have 
been  uniformly,  or  at  least  generally,  adopted.  But  no  such 
definite  apj)ollation  existed,  and  they  were  obliged  to  employ 

^  See  Richardson's  Dictionary,  word  Scripture. 


632   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  XIV, 

generic  terms  in  a  peculiar  and  emphatic  sense  when  they 
appealed  to  their  rule  of  faith.  Sometimes  the  sacred  Canon 
was  denominated  the  Holy  Scriptures,  sometimes  the  Oracles 
of  the  Lord,  sometimes  Divine  Scriptures,  Divine  Oracles, 
Divinely  Inspired  Scriptures,  Scriptures  of  the  Lord,  the 
True  Evangelical  Canon,  the  Old  and  New  TcMarnent,  the 
Ancient  and  New  Scriptures,  the  Ancient  and  New  Oracles, 
Books  of  the  Spirit,  Divine  Fountains,  Fountains  of  the 
Divine  Fullness}  In  this  abundance  of  phrases — and  only 
a  part  is  given — there  is  an  obvious  effort  to  convey  a  pre- 
cise idea  by  terms  which  were  felt  to  be  general,  a  constant 
endeavour  to  limit  in  a  particular  case  what,  according  to 
the  laws  of  the  language,  was  susceptible  of  a  larger  exten- 
sion. Hence,  while  it  is  true  that  such  phrases  were  'pre- 
eminently applied  to  the  Word  of  God,  we  must  know  that 
a  given  book  is  the  AVord  of  God  before  we  can  deter- 
mine whether  these  titles  are  bestowed  on  it  in  the  restricted 
and  emphatic  sense  or  in  their  usual  and  wider  significa- 
tion. That  the  Fathers  were  accustomed  to  use  them  in 
both  applications  it  requires  but  little  acquaintance  with 
their  writings  to  be  assured. 

Eusebius  testifies  that  Irenaeus,  whom  you  have  repre- 
sented as  endorsing  the  Apocrypha,  cited  as  Scripture  one 
of  the  weakest  performances  of  ecclesiastical  antiquity — the 
Shepherd  of  Hernias.  His  words  are  worthy  of  being  fully 
exhibited :  "  Nor  did  he  (Irenseus)  only  know,  but  he  also 
receives  the  Scripture  of  the  Shepherd,  saying :  Well  there- 
fore spake  the  Scripture  which  says, '  First  of  all,  believe  there 
is  one  God  who  created  and  formed  all  things,  and  -what  fol- 
lows.'"^ Here  it  is  evident  that  Scripture  means  only  a 
written  document,  and  has  no  reference  whatever  to  any 
impression  of  supernatural  origin.  The  meaning  of  Ire- 
nseus, as  Lardner  very  justly  expounds  it,^  is  exactly  this: 
"  Well  spake  that  writing,  W'Ork  or  book  which  says."     " It 

'  See  a  collection  of  these  titles  in  Paley's  Evidences  of  Christianity, 
part  i.,  chap.  ix. 

^  H.  E.,  lib.  v.,  c.  8.        3  ^Vorks,  vol.  ii„  p.  186  (London  Ed.,  1834). 


Lett.  XIV.]        PATRISTIC   TERMS    FOR   APOCRYPHA.  633 

is  certain,"  continues  the  author  of  the  Credibility,  "  that 
Irenseus  himself  had  so  used  this  word  ypo-^fr}  or  Scripture. 
Giving  an  account  of  the  Epistle  of  Clement,  Avritten  to  the 
Corinthians  in  the  name  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  he  says : 
'  The  Church  of  Rome  sent  a  most  excellent  8c7'ipture  (that 
is,  Epistle)  to  the  Corinthians.'  And  afterward,  '  from  that 
Scripture  one  may  learn  the  apostolical  tradition  of  the 
Church.'"  Eusebius  himself  uses  the  term  krtcaToAT^  as 
synonymous  with  ypatfij.  "  Polycarp,"  says  he,  "  in  his 
Scripture  to  the  Philippians,  still  extant,  has  made  use  of 
certain  testimoniee  taken  from  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter."* 
A^iong  the  Apocryphal  books  of  the  New  Testament  which 
he  utterly  rejects  from  any  reasonable  claim  to  inspired 
authority  he  mentions  the  Scripture  of  the  Acts  of  Paul.^ 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  figures  largely  in  your  pages, 
applies  the  term  Scriptures  to  the  compositions  of  the  hea- 
then authors  with  which  Ptolemy  adorned  his  library,  as 
well  as  to  the  sacred  and  canonical  books.^ 

If  the  word  were  not  confessedly  general  and  indefinite, 
nothing  could  be  inferred  from  it  as  a  term  of  reference 
after  the  Apocrypha  had  become  incorporated  into  the  sacred 
volume — and  but  few  references  were  made  to  them  before — 
and  had  begun  to  be  used  as  a  means  of  instruction  in  the 
congregations  of  the  faithful.  They  would  naturally  receive 
the  same  titles  which  belonged  to  the  collection  as  a  whole. 
The  name  of  the  volume  would  be  adopted  for  the  conve- 
nience of  citation,  and  nothing  could  be  deduced  from  a 
quotation  of  this  sort  but  the  existence  of  the  book  in  the 
specified  volume. 

Nothing  is  added  to  the  strength  of  the  argument  by 
citing  passages  from  the  Fathers  in  which  the  Apocrypha 
are  denominated  sacred  or  Divine  Scripture.  To  say  noth- 
ing of  the  fact  that  such  quotations  occur,  for  the  most  part, 
after  the  custom  to  which  allusion  has  just  been  made  obtained 
extensive  prevalence,  there  is  abundant  evidence  that  this 

'  II.  E.,  lii-.  iv.,  c.  14.  -'  Ibid.,  lib.  Hi.,  c.  25, 

3  Strom.,  Ill),  i.,  cap.  xxii. 


634    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.    [Lett.  XIV. 

and  equivalent  phraseology  were  often  employed  to  conyey 
the  idea  of  religious  literature.  Divine  Scripture,  in  nume- 
rous instances,  means  precisely  the  same  thing  as  an  edify- 
ing booh  or  a  composition  upon  religious  subjects,  Dionys- 
ius,  surnamed  the  Areopagite,  quoting  a  passage  from  the 
Epistles  of  Ignatius,  styles  him  the  Divine  Ignatius.^  Poly- 
crates,  the  metropolitan  bishop  of  Ephesus,  said  of  Melito 
that  "  he  was  governed  in  all  things  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  ^ 
Cyril,  appealing  to  a  decree  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  calls  it 
a  Divine  and  most  holy  oracle,  and  speaks  of  its  decisions  as 
divinely  inspired.^  Melchior  Canus  admits  that  Innocent 
III.  pronounced  the  words  of  Augustine  to  be  holy  Scrip- 
ture, just  as  the  Pontifical  laws  are  called  holy  to  distin- 
guish them  from  the  statutes  of  princes.*  So,  too,  the 
decrees  of  councils  and  the  decisions  of  the  Church  were 
called  holy  and  Divine,  because  they  related  to  the  subject 
of  religion. 

But  what  places  it  beyond  all  doubt  that  the  honourable 
epithets  with  which  the  Fathers  adorn  the  Apocrypha  were 
not  intended  to  convey  the  idea  of  inspiration,  is  that  in 
some  instances  those  very  writers  who  reject  them  from  the 
Canon  yet  quote  them  under  the  same  titles.  Origen,  who 
in  professedly  enumerating  the  books  which  constituted  the 
rule  of  faith  excluded  the  Apocrypha  from  the  Canon,  did 
not  scruple  to  refer  to  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  and  of 
the  son  of  Sirach,  to  the  Maccabees,  Tobit  and  Judith,  as 
Scriptures  or  the  Divine  Word  {d-lco::  loyoQ).^  Jerome, 
whose  testimony  is  as  explicit  as  language  can  make  it,  cites 
a  passage  from  the  book  of  Ecclesiasticus  and  calls  it 
Divine  Scripture.^  Now,  when  we  compare  his  statement 
concerning  this  book  and  that  of  Wisdom,  that  they  should 
be  read  for  popular  edification  in  life  and  manners,  and  not 

1  De  Div.  Nom.,  cap.  iv.,  sect.  9.  ^  Euseb.  H.  E.,  lib.  v.,  c.  24. 

»  De  Trinitat.,  lib.  i. 

*  Eainold,  Censura  Librorum  Apocry.,  Prselect.  vi.,  vol.  i.,  p.  6". 

5  De  Princip.,  ii.  1,  opp.  1,  p.  79.     Cont.  Cels.,  viii.,  opp.  1,  p.  778,  etc. 

«  Epist.  92,  ad  Julian. 


Lett.  XIV.]        PATRISTIC   TERMS    FOR   APOCRYPHA.  635 

for  the  establishing  of  any  doctrine  in  the  Church,  we  under- 
stand at  once  wliat  meaning  to  attach  to  his  laudatory 
notice  of  Ecclesiasticus.  Epiphanius,  as  Bellarmine  admits, 
acknowledged  no  books  but  those  which  were  found  in  the 
Hebrew  Canon,  and  Rome  herself  does  not  pretend  that 
the  Apostolical  Constitutions  are  the  inspired  Word  of  God. 
Yet,  Epiphanius  quotes  them  as  Divine  Scripture,^  a  clear 
and  triunipliant  proof  that  this  phrase  was  by  no  means 
equivalent  to  inspired  writings.  One  of  the  clearest  pas- 
sages for  illustrating  the  meaning  of  this  phrase  is  found 
in  his  disputation  against  iEtius.^  He  there  enumerates 
the  books  Mhich  constitute  the  Hebrew  Canon,  then  the 
Avritings  of  the  New  Testament,  and  having  completed  his 
account  of  the  books  that  were  inspired,  he  mentions  Wis- 
dom, Ecclesia.sticus  and  such  like  books  as  Divine  Scriptures. 
His  design  was  to  show  that  ^tius  could  defend  his  heresies 
neither  from  the  books  which  the  Church  admitted  as 
inspired,  nor  from  those  other  writings  upon  religious  sub- 
jects which  were  allowed  to  be  read  for  the  ])urpose  of  per- 
sonal improvement.  The  very  structure  of  the  passage 
shows  that  he  made  a  marked  distinction  between  the 
Apocrypha  and  canonical  books,  though  both  were  equally 
denominated  Divine  Scripture.  Cyprian,  too,  quotes  the 
Apocrypha  as  sacred  Scripture,  but  at  the  same  time  he 
shows  unequivocally  that  he  did  not  regard  them  as  an 
authoritative  standard  of  faith.  Having  on  one  occasion 
cited  a  sentence  from  the  book  of  Tobit,  he  proceeds  to  con- 
firm it  by  the  "  testimony  of  truth " — that  is,  by  a  passage 
from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  a  canonical  book,  evidently 
implying  that  though  the  Apocry])ha  were  Divine  Scripture, 
they  wei'c  not  on  that  account  the  Word  of  God.^  This 
same  Father  also  cites  the  third  and  fourth  books  of  Esdras, 
and  the  argument  is  just  as  strong  that  he  regarded  them  as 
inspired,  though  Kome  rejects  them,  as  it  is  in  favour  of  the 
books  in  question. 

There  is  another  circum.stance  which  to  my  mind  .settles 
1  ILi  re-s  SH.        '  Ibid.,  75,  Cont.  ^Et.        ^  De  Oper.  et  Eleemos,  I  vi. 


636    ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  XIV. 

the  matter  that  the  ancients  used  the  expressions  which  they 
apply  to  tlie  Apocrypha  without  intending  to  commend  those 
documents  as  inspired.  Tliey  make  a  distinction  in  the 
authority  due  to  books  which  yet  they  expressly  honoured 
as  Divine.  It  is  evident  that  all  truly  inspired  writings, 
Trent  itself  being  witness,  must  be  received  with  equal 
veneration  and  piety.  There  may  be  a  difference  in  the 
value  of  the  truths  which  are  communicated  in  different 
books,  but  there  can  be  no  difference  in  authority  when  all 
proceed  from  the  Father  of  lights,  with  whom  is  no  varia- 
bleness, neither  shadow  of  turning.  Inspiration  secures  a 
complete  exemption  from  error,  and  the  Divine  testimony 
is  entitled  to  the  same  consideration  whether  it  be  interposed 
to  establish  a  primary  or  a  secondary  principle.  AVhenever 
God  speaks,  no  matter  what  may  be  the  subject  on  which 
He  chooses  to  address  us.  His  voice  is  entitled  to  absolute 
obedience,  and  we  are  as  much  bound  to  believe  what  seems 
in  itself  to  be  of  subordinate  importance  when  He  pro- 
claims it,  as  we  are  to  receive  the  weightier  matters  of  the 
law.  All  inspired  Scripture,  therefore,  stands  on  the  same 
footing  of  authority.^     When,  therefore,  a  writer  treats  one 

^  This  is  well  expressed  by  Bishop  Marsh,  Comp.  View,  p.  90.  His 
words  are  as  follows : 

"But  it  is  really  absurd  to  talk  of  a  medium  between  canonical  anil 
uncanonical,  or  of  degrees  of  canonicity.  Let  us  ask  what  the  Church 
of  England  understands  by  a  canonical  book.  This  question  is  answered 
in  the  sixth  article.  It  is  a  book  to  which  we  may  appeal  in  confirma- 
tion of  doctrines.  It  belongs  to  the  Canon,  or  to  the  rule  of  faith.  And 
the  very  same  explanation  is  given  in  the  corresponding  decree  of  the 
Council  of  Trent — namely,  that  which  passed  at  the  fourth  session ;  for, 
after  an  enumeration  of  the  books  called  sacred  and  canonical  {sacri  et 
canonici),  the  decree  concludes  with  the  observation  that  the  authoritie.s 
above  stated  are  those  which  the  council  proposes  to  use  in  confirmation 
of  doctrines  {in  confirmandis  dogmatibus).  Every  book,  therefore,  ranst 
either  be  or  not  be  acknowledged  as  a  work  of  authority  for  tlie  establish- 
ment of  doctnnes.  Between  its  absolute  rejection  and  its  absolute  admis- 
sion there  is  no  medium.  When  the  question  relates  to  the  establishment 
ot  doclrinet,  a  book  must  have/«//  authority  for  that  purpose,  or  its  author- 
ity is  worth  nothing.  And  hence  the  Council  of  Trent  very  consistently 
ascribed  equal  authox'ity  to  them  all.     No  writer,  therefore,  belonging  to 


Lett.  XIV.]        PATRISTIC   TERMS    FOR    APOCRYPII.V.  637 

book  as  of  less  authority  tlian  another,  it  is  equivalent  to 
saying  that  the  subordinate  book  is  not  inspired.  Now  the 
Fathers  did  treat  books  which  they  pronounced  to  be  sacred 
and  Divine  as  of  inferior  authority,  and  therefore  sacred  and 
Divine  with  them  must  have  been  something  very  different 
from  inspiration.  Juuilius,  in  his  Treatise  de  Partibus 
Divina;  Legis,  in  speaking  of  the  "  authority  of  the  Divine 
books,"  expressly  declares  that  "  some  are  jiossessed  of  per- 
fect authority,  some  middle,  and  some  of  none  at  allJ'  It  is 
impossible  that  any  Christian  man,  who  had  the  least  reve- 
rence for  the  testimony  of  God,  could  say  of  what  He  had 
revealed  by  His  Spirit  that  it  possessed  no  authority  at  all. 
And  yet  Junilius,  a  Christian  bisho]>  in  the  sixth  century, 
asserts  this  of  books  which  in  his  day  were  received  as  holy 
and  Divine.  The  conclusion  is  unavoidable  that  in  such 
connections  these  Avords  mean  something  very  different 
from  inspired. 

The  testimony  of  Augustine  is  equally  explicit  in  the 
matter.  He  was  a  member  of  that  Council  of  Carthage 
which  is  supposed  to  have  canonized  the  Apocryphal  books, 
and  of  course  received  them  as  Divine  Scripture.  Speaking 
of  the  books  of  Maccabees,  however,  he  justifies  their  recep- 
tion by  the  Church,  chiefly  on  account  of  the  moral  tendency 
of  the  history.^  It  is  plain  that  he  could  not  have  regarded 
them  as  inspired,  since  their  inspiration  would  have  been 
the  Church  of  Rome  could  represent  their  authority  as  unequal  without 
impugning  that  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent." 

To  the  same  purport  is  the  following  declaration  of  Lindanus  in  Pano- 
plia  Evang.,  as  quoted  by  Kainold,  Cens.  Lib.  Apoc,  Pralect.  xxiv.,  vol.  i., 
p.  203 : 

"Eosimpio  se  sacrilegio  contaminarc,  ([ui  in  Scripturarum  Christian- 
arum  cor[)ore,  quosdam  quasi  gradus  authoritatis  cunantur  locare  quod 
uiiam,  eandcmque  Spiritus  Sancti  vocem  impio  iiumanie  stultitiic  discern- 
iculo  audent  in  varias  impares  di.-^cerpere  ac  distribuere  authoritatis  classes." 

'  Augustine  says :  "  Hanc  Scripturam  qure  appellatur  Maccluibcenrum, 
non  habent  Judsei  sicut  Legem  et  Prophetas  et  Psalmos  quibus  Dominus 
testimonium  prohibit.  .  .  .  Sed  recepta  est  ab>^I'>cclesia  non  inutiliter,  si 
sobrie  legatur  vel  audiatur,  maxime  propter  illos  Macchabseos  qui  pro  Dei 
lege  sicut  veri  martyres  i  persecutoribus  tam  indigna  atque  horrenda  per- 
pessi  sunt." — Cont.  Gaudent.  Donat.,  lib.  i.,  c.  xxxi. 


638    ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  XIV. 

the  strongest  of  all  possible  reasons  for  receiving  them.  He 
receives  them  only  because  they  might  be  profitably  read  and 
heard,  and  they  were  Divine  in  no  other  sense  than  as  being 
subservient  to  the  purpose  of  edification  and  improvement. 

As,  now,  such  phrases  as  Divine  Scripture  are  confessedly 
ambiguous,  as  a  meaning  may  be  put  upon  them  justified  by 
the  nature  of  the  w^ords  and  by  ancient  usage  qu^e  distinct 
from  that  of  inspiration,  it  certainly  devolves  upon  those 
who  adduce  the  adoption  of  such  expressions  by  the  ancient 
Fathers,  as  sustaining  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  Trent, 
to  prove  unanswerably  that  Divine  Scripture  and  inspired 
Scripture  are  uniformly  used  as  synonymous  terms  by  the 
early  Avriters,  or  their  Avhole  argument  falls  to  the  ground. 
It  is  one  thing  to  assert  that  books  are  Divine  in  the  sense 
that  they  may  be  profitably  read  or  devoutly  studied ;  it  is 
quite  another  to  affirm  that  their  authors  wrote  as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  issue  betwixt  us  and  Rome  is  on  the  point  of  inspi- 
ration.  She  affirms  that  God  is  the  Author  of  these  books, 
and  Ave  deny  it.  The  question  is  not  whether  the  primitive 
churches  read  them  or  not,  wdiether  the  early  Fathers  quoted 
them  or  not,  or  whether  they  regarded  them  as  instructive 
or  not,  or  whether  they  pronounced  them  Divine  or  not ; 
the  question  is,  Was  God  their  Author  ?  And  while  this  is 
the  issue,  the  Romanist  only  exposes  himself  and  his  cause 
to  contempt  by  elaborate  proofs  of  what  no  Protestant  would 
deem  it  of  any  importance  to  dispute  with  him. 

It  would  be  well  for  you  to  bear  in  mind  what  you  will 
find  strikingly  illustrated  in  the  Offices  of  Tully,'  the  marked 
difference  between  the  looseness  of  popular  language  and  the 
accuracy  of  scientific  disquisition.  As  the  Primitive  Church 
entertained  no  doubts  of  the  exclusive  claims  of  the  Hebrew 
Canon,  as  this  was  a  settled  matter,  there  was  no  danger  of 
being  misunderstood  in  employing  words  in  a  general  sense 
which  had  a  peculiar  and  emphatic  application  only  to  a 
particular  class  of  books.     They  were  not  likely  to  mislead, 

1  Lib.  ii.,  c.  10. 


Lett.  XIV.]        PATRISTIC  TERMS   FOR   APOCRYPHA.  639 

any  more  than  to  cite  the  Apocrypha  now  as  belonging  to 
the  Old  Testament  would  be  construed  into  a  recognition  of 
their  Divine  authority,  or  to  speak  of  Watts,  Hervey,  Owen 
and  Newton  as  holy  men,  illustrious  divines  and  spiritual 
writers  would  be  regarded  as  tantamount  to  the  assertion 
that  they  were  supernaturally  inspired.  All  the  epithets 
with  which  we  distinguish  the  sacred  Scriptures  have  a  loose 
and  popular  as  well  as  a  strict  and  scientific  sense,  and  hence 
the  mere  use  of  the  words  determines  nothing  as  to  the  cha- 
racter of  the  writings.  An  argument  constructed  upon  this 
foundation  would  prove  too  much  even  for  Home;  it  would 
authorize  Barnabas,  Clement,  Ignatius,  the  Apocryphal  l)ook 
of  Isaiah,  the  book  of  Henoch,  and  the  third  and  fourth  books 
of  Esdras,  the  writings  of  Augustine,  the  canons  of  coun- 
cils and  the  decrees  of  popes,  to  claim  a  place  in  the  same 
category  Avith  Moses,  the  Prophets,  the  Psalms,  Evangelists 
and  Apostles.  All  these  rejected  documents  were  quoted  by 
the  Fathers,  quoted  distinctly  as  Scripture,  in  some  instances 
as  Divine  Scripture,  and,  what  is  still  more  remarkable,  as 
divinely  inspired  Scripture.  This  is  the  language  which 
Nicholas^  employs  in  regard  to  the  Fathers,  and  which  CyriP 
applies  to  the  Council  of  Nice. 

It  may  be,  therefore,  regarded  as  indisputably  settled  that 
Divine  Scripture  and  such  like  expressions  were  not  equiv- 
alent to  a  proper  name  for  the  canonical  books. 

If,  therefore,  we  wish  to  ascertain  what  were  the  senti- 
ments of  the  Primitive  Church  in  relation  to  the  extent  of 
the  Canon,  we  must  appeal  to  more  definite  sources  of  in- 
formation than  a  collection  of  passages  which  may  be  just 
as  accurately  interpreted  to  mean  that  the  disputed  books 
were  religious  in  opposition  to  profane  as  that  they  were 
inspired  in  opposition  to  human.  Loose  and  popular  ex- 
pressions are  not  the  proper  materials  for  an  argument  of 
this  sort.  Incidental  statements,  occasionally  drop[)ed  in 
the  midst  of  discourses  upon  other  matters,  do  not  constitute 

1  Epist.  ad  Micliii'l.  Imp.  (Rainolil,  Pnelcct.  xxiv.,  vol.  i.,  p.  201). 
-  De  Trinitate,  lib.  i.  (Kainoltl,  Ibid.). 


640   ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  XIV. 

the  testimony  of  the  Primitive  Church.  That  shouUl,  man- 
ifestly, be  sought  in  those  places  of  the  ancient  M'riters  in 
which  they  were  professedly  treating  of  the  standard  of 
faith,  and  avow  it  as  their  design  to  set  forth  the  books 
which  were  received  as  supernaturally  inspired.  We  have 
numerous  passages  in  which  these  books  are  the  subject  of 
discussion;  we  have  divers  catalogues,  made  by  different 
writers  and  at  different  times  during  the  first  four  cen- 
turies, of  all  the  documents  which  the  Church  received  aa 
the  rule  of  faith,  in  different  forms  and  under  different  cir- 
cumstances ;  the  whole  matter  is  repeatedly  brought  before 
us ;  we  have  line  upon  line,  precept  on  precept,  here  a  little 
and  there  a  little;  and  in  such  passages,  and  such  passages 
alone,  I  insist  upon  it,  is  the  testimony  of  the  Primitive 
Church  to  be  sought.  In  those  parts  of  the  Patristical  re- 
mains where  it  is  the  express  purpose  of  the  writer  to  declare 
what  books  were  believed  to  be  of  God,  we  may  expect  pre- 
cision, accuracy  and  care.  The  witness  is  put  upon  the 
stand,  answers,  as  it  were,  under  oath,  and  guards  his  phrase- 
ology, provided  he  be  honest,  so  as  to  convey  an  adequate 
impression  of  the  truth.  The  astronomer  sjDcaks  in  popular 
language  of  the  sun's  rising  and  setting  and  pursuing  his 
course  through  the  heavens,  and  yet  it  would  be  preposter- 
ous to  charge  him  with  denying  the  elementary  principles 
of  his  science  or  teaching  a  system  that  has  long  been  ex- 
ploded, because  he  employs  expressions  which,  though  suf- 
ficiently exact  for  the  ordinary  intercourse  of  life,  are  not 
philosoj)hically  precise.  So,  in  a  loose  and  familiar  accep- 
tation, the  primitive  Fathers  speak  of  the  Apocrypha  as 
Divine  Scripture,  intending  to  convey  no  other  idea  but  that 
they  belonged  to  a  class  of  religious  literature,  and  might 
be  profitably  studied  for  personal  improvement;  and  it  is 
equally  preposterous  from  such  general  expressions  to  infer 
that  they  taught  the  supernatural  inspiration  of  the  books. 
For  the  real  opinions  of  the  astronomer  you  Avould  appeal 
to  his  language  when  he  is  professedly  treating  of  the 
heavenly  bodies ;  then  you  would  expect  him  to  \^•eigh  his 


Lett.  XIV.]       PATRISTIC   TERM.S    FOR    APOCRYPHA.  641 

words,  to  avoid  the  looseness  of  popular  discourse,  and  to 
employ  no  terms  which  are  not  scientifically  just.  So  for 
the  real  opinions  of  the  Fathers  upon  the  subject  of  the 
Canon  we  should  appeal  to  their  statements  when  they  pro- 
fessedly give  us  an  accurate  account  or  formal  catalogue  of 
the  inspired  Avorks.  Then  we  should  expect  them  to  use 
terms  in  a  strictly  scientific  sense ;  and  if  in  such  connections 
the  Apocrypha  were  ever  introduced  as  a  part  of  the  Word 
of  God,  there  would  be  something  like  testimony  in  behalf 
of  the  pretensions  of  Rome.  But  it  is  worthy  of  remark 
that  in  every  case  in  which  the  ancient  writers  used  the 
terms  Seripture  and  Divine  Scripture  in  their  restricted 
and  emphatic  application,  in  all  instances  in  which  they  are 
professedly  treating  of  the  Canon  of  inspiration,  they  never 
extend  them  to  the  Apocrypha.  In  none  of  the  catalogues 
which  they  have  given  us  of  the  books  wdiich  God  has  gra- 
ciously imparted  as  the  Rule  of  Faith  are  these  spurious  rec- 
ords to  be  found.  The  voice  of  Christian  antiquity  accords 
with  the  voice  of  the  Jewish  Church,  and  both  combine  to 
condemn  the  arrogance  and  blasphemy  of  Trent. 

Nothing,  sir,  can  reveal  more  clearly  the  desperate  extrem- 
ities to  which  you  are  driven  in  support  of  a  sinking  cause 
than  that,  instead  of  giving  those  plain,  pointed  and  direct 
statements  which  the  Fathers  themselves  intended  to  be, 
and  which  common  sense  suggests  must  be,  their  testimony 
upon  the  subject,  you  hunt  up  and  down  through  all  the 
remains  of  antiquity,  and  preserve  your  soul  from  absolute 
despair  by  seizing,  here  and  there,  upon  a  few  popular  ex- 
pressions, which,  by  being  tortured  into  a  special  and  re- 
stricted sense,  may  be  made  to  look  with  some  degree  of 
favour  on  your  claims.  You  never  seem  to  be  aware  of  the 
egregious  absurdity  of  bending  the  accurate  to  the  loose,  in- 
stead of  the  loo.se  to  the  accurate.  Upon  the  same  principle, 
if  you  should  meet  with  a  pa.ssage  in  the  private  and  con- 
fidential letter  of  a  man  of  science  in  which  he  employed 
the  language  of  the  vulgar,  you  would  at  once  construe  it 
into  the  true  exposition  of  his  sy.stem,  and  make  his  ])hil- 

VOL.  III.— 41 


642    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Lf.tt.  XIV. 

osophical  treatises  succumb  to  his  popular  expressions. 
There  is  an  apparent  discrepancy,  and  that  must  be  recon- 
ciled by  torturing  philosophy  and  dignifying  the  dialect  of 
the  vulgar. 

If,  sir,  there  existed  an  apparent  inconsistency  between 
the  statements  of  a  witness,  publicly  given,  -when  he  stood 
forth  in  the  face  of  the  world  to  make  his  deposition,  and 
incidental  expressions,  touching  the  matter  in  dispute,  drop- 
ped from  him  in  the  course  of  conversation  upon  other 
subjects,  and  if  you  regarded  him  as  a  man  of  veracity  who 
would  not  really  contradict  himself,  would  you  feel  bound 
to  explain  his  professed  testimony  by  his  loose  conversation, 
or  to  reconcile  his  loose  conversation  with  his  professed  tes- 
timony? Which  would  you  regard  as  the  standard  by  which 
the  other  was  to  be  measured?  Which,  in  other  words, 
would  be  what  might  be  properly  called  his  testimony  f  It 
is  certainly  the  dictate  of  common  sense  to  explain  the  loose 
by  the  accurate. 

Cicero,  in  one  of  his  philosophical  treatises,  in  conformity 
with  the  example  of  illustrious  predecessors,  maintained 
that  he  who  possessed  one  of  the  virtues  must  necessarily 
possess  them  all.  In  a  popular  work  he  subsequently  re- 
marked that  a  man  might  be  just  without  being  prudent. 
Here  appeared  to  be  a  discrepancy,  and  upon  your  principles 
of  criticism  the  true  method  of  explaining  it  was  to  deny 
that  he  held  prudence  to  be  a  virtue.  The  philosopher, 
however,  has  solved  the  difficulty  himself  by  assuring  us 
that  there  was  no  real  inconsistency,  since  in  the  one  case 
the  terms  were  employed  with  precision  and  accuracy,  and 
in  the  other  with  popular  laxness.  Alia  est  ilia,  says  he — 
and  it  would  be  w^ell  for  you  to  remember  the  remai'k — 
cum  Veritas  ijysa  limatur  in  disputatione,  subtilitas :  alia,  cum 
ad  opinionem  commimem  omnis  accommodatur  oratio. 

If  the  plain  and  obvious  principles  which  I  have  briefly 
suggested  be  applied  to  the  criticism  of  the  ancient  docu- 
ments which  have  survived  the  ravages  of  time,  we  shall 
find  that  there  is  not  a  single  record  of  the  first  four  cen- 


Lett.  XIV.]        P.\T1!ISTIC   TERMS   FOR   APOCRYPIIA  <)4.'i 

tiiries  which  sustains  the  decision  of  Trent.  The  unbroken 
testimony  of  that  whole  period  is  clearly,  decidedly,  unan- 
swerably, against  that  unparalleled  deed  of  atrocity  and 
guilt.  And  how  else  can  it  be  regarded  but  as  a  downright 
insult  to  the  understandings  of  men,  when  the  formal  cata- 
logues of  the  Primitive  Church  are  produced,  when  the 
passages  are  brought  forward  in  which  the  best  and  noblest 
champions  of  the  faith  undertake  professedly  to  recount  the 
books  of  the  Canon,  when  they  come  forward  for  the  express 
purpose  of  bearing  testimony  in  the  matter  before  us, — how 
else  can  it  be  regarded  but  as  a  downright  insult  to  the  un- 
derstandings of  men  to  tell  us  that  this  is  not  the  voice  of 
antiquity,  that  these  recorded  statements  are  not  the  true 
statements  of  the  case,  because  it  so  happens  that  other 
books  besides  those  included  in  the  lists  of  inspiration  were 
not  treated  as  absolutely  heathenish  and  profane  ?  For 
this,  as  we  have  seen,  when  fairly  interpreted,  is  the  real 
amount  of  the  testimony  jn  favour  of  the  Apocrypha.  The 
ancient  Church  treated  them  as  religious  and  edifying  books, 
just  precisely  as  the  modern  Church  regards  the  com})osi- 
tions  of  Howe,  Owen  and  Scott.  Therefore,  we  are  gravely 
told,  they  must  be  inspired. 

When  I  reflect  upon  your  whole  course  of  argument  uj)on 
this  subject,  I  can  hardly  persuade  myself  that  you  are  able 
to  peruse  your  own  lucubrations  without  losing  your  gravity. 

You  set  out  with  the  purpose  of  proving  that  Christ  and 
His  Apostles  had  delivered  the  Apocrypha  to  the  Christian 
Church  as  inspired  documents.  This  was  a  perlcctly 
plain  and  intelligible  proposition ;  it  respected  a  simple 
matter  of  fact,  the  legitimate  proof  of  which  was  credible 
testimony,  and  we  had  a  right  to  expect  that  you  would 
produce  some  record  of  the  Apostles,  or  some  authentic 
evidence  from  those  who  were  contemporary  with  them,  in 
which  it  was  directlv  stated  that  such  was  the  case.  But 
these  reasonable  expectations  are  excited  only  to  be  blasted. 
Nothing  of  the  sort  appears  in  any  part  of  your  letters ; 
but,  as  if  in  mockery  of  our  hopes,  you  put  us  off  with  a 


644        TESTIMONIES   FROM   SECOND   CENTURY.         [Lett.  XV. 

series  of  quotations,  Avhich,  allowing  them  all  the  weight 
that  can  possibly  be  given  to  them,  prove  nothing  more 
than  the  existence  of  the  books  in  the  apostolic  age.  Then 
we  are  to  infer,  it  Avould  seem,  that  Christ  and  His  A])ostles 
delivered  the  Apocrypha  to  the  Christian  Church  as  in- 
spired, because  the  books  existed  in  the  apostolic  age.  But 
hold!  You  have,  perhaps,  some  stronger  reasons  in  reserve. 
The  Primitive  Church  believed  them  to  be  inspired;  there- 
fore, beyond  all  question,  they  must  be  inspired.  Now, 
granting  what  I  am  unable  to  perceive,  the  legitimacy  of 
your  therefore  in  the  present  case,  how  does  it  apj)ear  that 
such  was  the  faith  of  the  Primitive  Church?  This  point, 
you  inform  us,  is  as  clear  as  noonday,  for  the  Fathers  of 
the  ancient  Church  actually  quoted  these  very  books,  ai^d 
pronounced  them  to  be  useful  and  edifying  compositions. 
This  is  demonstration  plain  and  irrefragable  as  holy  Avrit, 
and  he  who  cannot  see  the  proofs  of  inspiration  in  conduct 
of  this  kind  must  be  a  stubborn  and  refractory  spirit  that 
deserves  the  damnation  which  Trent  has  denounced.  The 
substance  of  your  letters  may  be  embodied  in  the  folloAAang 
beautiful  sorites: 

The  Apocrypha  were  quoted  by  the  Primitive  Church. 

Whatever  it  quoted  it  believed  to  be  inspired. 

Whatever  it  believed  to  be  inspired  it  had  received  from 
the  hands  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles. 

Therefore  the  Apocrypha  were  delivered  to  the  Church 
by  Christ  and  His  Apostles  as  inspired  documents ! 


LETTER    XV. 

TESTIMONIES   FROM  THE  SECOND   CENTURY. 

That  the  reader  may  distinctly  apprehend  how  slender 
is  the  basis  upon  M'hich  the  Church  of  Rome  has  erected 
her  portentous  additions  to  the  Scriptures,  I  proceed  to  ex- 


Lett.  XV.]         TESTIl\[ONIES    FROM    SECOND    CENTURY.        645 

amine,  in  detai],  the  various  testimonies  upon  which  you 
have  relied  to  prove  the  inspiration  of  the  Apocrypha. 
This  task,  it  is  true,  is  in  a  great  degree  unnecessary,  since 
it  has  ah-eady  been  conclusively  demonstrated  that  your 
method  of  procedure  is  fallacious.  But  as  in  the  weakness 
of  your  attempted  refutation,  you  have  only  shown  the 
strength  of  the  position  that  within  the  period  embraced 
in  this  discussion — the  first  four  centuries  of  the  Christian 
era — not  a  single  writer  can  be  found  who  regarded  these 
documents  as  the  Word  of  God,  it  may  be  of  service  to  the 
interests  of  righteousness  to  cross-examine  your  witnesses 
one  by  one,  and  to  show,  as  the  result,  that  upon  the  subject 
of  the  books  of  the  Canon  the  voice  of  antiquity  is  harmo- 
nious and  clear.  Still,  however,  it  deserves  to  be  remarked 
that  if  you  had  been  as  successful  as  you  evidently  hoped 
to  be  in  establishing  the  fact  that  the  primitive  Fathers,  to 
wdiom  you  have  appealed,  coincided  upon  this  point  with 
the  Council  of  Trent,  your  original  proposition  would  not 
have  been  sustained.  Your  purpose  was  to  prove  that 
Christ  or  His  Apostles  had  given  to  the  Christian  Church  the 
authority  of  which,  according  to  you,  the  Jews  were  not  pos- 
sessed, to  insert  these  books  into  the  sacred  Canon.  It  was 
testimony  in  behalf  of  this  fact  of  which  you  were  in  quest, 
and  such  testimony  you  cannot  surely  pretend  to  have  pro- 
duced in  the  beggarly  quotations  with  which  you  have 
amused  us.  Since,  however,  you  have  failed,  signally  failed, 
as  a  slight  investigation  will  render  indubitable,  in  your 
laborious  endeavours  to  prove  that  the  Canon  of  the  Fathers 
was  the  same  with  the  Canon  of  E,ome,  how  overwhelming 
must  be  your  defeat  whenever  you  shall  condescend  to  un- 
dertake the  discussion  of  the  other,  your  main  and  leading 
proposition  ! 

1.  The  first  writer  of  tlie  second  century  to  whom  you 
have  appealed  is  Justin  Martyr.  You  produce  a  passage 
from  the  first  Apology,  which  Justin  himself  professes  to 
have  borrowed  from  the  books  of  JIoscs,  but  which  you  are 
certain,  in  defiance  of  his  own  une(juivocal  assertion,  nnist 


6-46     ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.    [Lett.  XV. 

have  been  condensed  from  a  corresponding  passage  in  the 
Wisdom  of  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach.  It  is  not,  therefore, 
a  question  between  you  and  me,  but  a  question  between  you 
and  the  Father  himself,  whether  or  not  he  has  quoted  the 
Apocrypha.  In  the  midst  of  proof  of  the  moral  agency 
of  man,  and  a  consequent  refutation  of  the  dangerous  and 
absurd  pretensions  of  libertines  and  fatalists,  Justin  observes, 
"  The  Holy  Prophetic  Spirit  taught  us  these  things,  having 
said  through  Closes  that  God  spoke  thus  to  the  first  formed 
man :  Behold,  before  you  are  good  and  evil ;  choose  the 
good."  ^  "  It  might  seem,"  you  inform  us  in  your  curioiLS 
and  amusing  criticism  upon  this  passage,  "  that  St.  Ju.stin 
thought  that  Moses  declares  God  spoke  thus  to  Adam;  but 
in  his  writings  he  appears  too  well  acquainted  with  the 
Scriptures,  and  to  have  studied  the  account  of  the  creation 
too  accurately,  to  commit  such  a  mistake.  I  have  not  the 
means,"  you  continue,  "  of  discovering  whether  there  be 
any  grounds  for  supposing  some  error  of  the  manuscript  in 
recording  the  name,  or  whether  we  are  forced  to  say  that  he 
meant  that  Moses  gives  us  an  account  of  the  creation  and 
of  the  facts,  though  he  does  not  record  the  words  which  else- 
where the  Holy  and  Prophetic  Spirit  testifies  Avere  spoken, 
or  that  St.  Justin,  in  fine,  erred  in  memory,  confounding  one 
part  of  Scripture  with  another.  This  much  is  certain,  that 
the  words  attributed  by  him  to  the  Holy  and  Prophetic 
Spirit  are  found  in  Ecclesiasticus  xv.,  from  Avhich  they  are 
evidently  condensed." 

It  is  not  a  little  singular  that  the  holy  Father  should  have 
been  too  accurately  acquainted  with  the  Scriptures  to  com- 
mit the  mistake,  if  indeed  a  mistake  it  can  be  called,  Avhich 
his  words  most  obviously  seem  to  imply,  and  yet  at  the  same 
time  have  possessed  a  memory  so  treacherous  and  erring  as 
to  confound  one  part  of  Scripture  with  another.     The  ques- 

^  EfSifJafe  Kai  ^fiac  ravra  to  ayiov  ttqo^ijtikov  Tvvehjua  6ia  Mcjaiug  (p^aav  '(ft 
TTQUTtj  irlaadEVTi  avdg^Tvu  iigfjadai  vtto  tov  deov  ovtuc,  i^ov  npb  irgoauirov  aov 
rb  ayaOhv  km  to  kukSv  EK?i£^aL  to  dyadov.  Apol.  i.,  §  44,  p.  69,  Paris  edition, 
1742. 


Lett.  XV.]        TESTIMONIES   FROM    SECOXD   CENTURY.        647 

tion,  too,  mio-ht  naturally  be  asked,  why,  if  tlie  ineiuory 
only  were  in  fiuilt,  it  is  not  just  as  likely  that  Justin  has 
confounded  what  Moses  is  recorded  to  haye  said  in  the  fif- 
teenth and  nineteenth  verses  of  the  thirteenth  chapter  of 
Deuteronomy  to  his  assembled  countrymen  with  what  God 
aimounced  to  the  progenitor  of  the  race,  as  that  he  has 
mistaken  the  son  of  Sirach  for  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch. 
As  there  exists  not  a  particle  of  evidence  that  the  name  of 
Moses  has  been  corruptly  foisted  into  the  next,  we  are  com- 
pelled to  acknowledge  that  the  good  Father,  even  if  he  had 
really,  though  unconsciously,  condensed  the  passage  in  ques- 
tion from  the  corresponding  passage  in  the  Wisdom  of  Jesus, 
treats  it  as  inspired,  and  ascribes  it  to  the  Holy  Prophetic 
Spirit,  not  because  it  is  found  in  Ecclesiasticus,  but  because 
he  supposed  it  had  been  written  by  the  Jewish  legislator. 
The  words  are  certainly  contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  though 
not  in  the  connection  in  which  they  are  quoted  by  Justin. 
JNIoses  nowhere  says,  totidem  verbis,  that  God  employed  such 
language  to  the  father  of  the  race,  but  he  distinctly  teaches 
what  is  equivalent  to  it — that  Adam  was  placed  under  a 
legal  dispensation,  in  which  life  was  promised  as  the  reward 
of  obedience,  and  death  threatened  as  the  penalty  of  trans- 
gression. As  such  a  dispensation  might  be  conveniently 
described  in  the  very  words  which  Justin  has  quoted,  and 
as  Moses  actually  emj^loyed  them  in  the  thirtieth  chapter 
of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,^  it  is  no  rash  presumption  to 
suppose  that  they  were  simply  accommodated,  in  the  pa.ssage 
before  us,  to  express  the  condition  in  which  man  was  placed, 
as  Paul  accommodates  a  portion  of  the  same  chapter  in  his 
beautiful  description  of  the  economy  of  grace.^  The  point 
which  Justin  had  in  view  was  to  prove  the  freedom  of  the 
human  Avill,  a  point  necessarily  involved  in  a  state  of  ])ro- 
bation,  and  which,  therefore,  would  be  sufficiently  established 
by  shoM'ing  what  Moses  had  unquestionably  taught — that 
man  was  made  the  subject  of  law.  *'It  appears  from  the 
Scriptures,"  he  would  say — if  I  may  be  allowed  to  para- 
'  Verses  lo  and  19.  ^  Vide  Romans  x.  0,  7,  8. 


648      ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.    [Lett.  XV 

phrase  his  meaning — "  it  appears  from  the  Scriptures,  that 
man  is  a  responsible,  voluntary  agent,  because,  Avhen  orig- 
inally formed  by  God,  it  was  made  to  depend  upon  his  own 
choice,  upon  the  free  decisions  of  his  own  will,  whether  he 
should  be  eternally  happy  or  miserable;  life  and  death  were 
set  before  him;  an  easy  probation  was  assigned  him;  and 
hence  it  follows  that  the  power  of  election  necessarily  be- 
longed to  him.  The  very  language  which  Moses  employed 
in  a  diiferent  connection  so  exactly  describes  the  nature  of 
the  trial  to  which  our  first  father  was  subjected  that  it  may 
fitly  be  considered  as  the  terms  in  which  God  addressed  him 
when  He  set  before  him  the  blessing  and  the  curse  in  the 
garden  of  Eden."  '  If  this  view  of  the  passage  be  correct, 
there  is  evidently  no  necessity  of  contradicting  the  state- 
ments of  Justin  himself,  and  of  making  him  quote  from  one 
book  when  he  professes  to  have  borroM'ed  from  another. 
You  have  consequently  not  succeeded,  and  I  may  venture 
to  assert  that  you  will  never  succeed,  in  bringing  up  a  single 
exception  to  the  sweeping  remark  of  Bishop  Cosin,  that 
Justin  Martyr,  "  in  all  his  works,  citeth  not  so  much  as  any 
one  passage  out  of  the  Apocryphal  books,  nor  maketh  the 
least  mention  of  them  at  all."  This  is  certainly  astonishing, 
since  in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew  the  subject  in- 
vited him  to  incidental  notices  of  the  conduct  and  temper 
of  the  Jewish  people  in  regard  to  the  Scriptures.  Though 
you  are  right  in  supposing  that  quotations  in  that  conference 
from  the  Apocryphal  works  as  authoritative  decisions  of 
the  matters  in  dispute  would  have  been  inadmissible,  yet  it 
was  manifestly  not  out  of  place  to  expose  the  hardness  of 
heart  and  blindness  of  mind  which  persevered  in  the  rejec- 
tion of  inspired  documents  after  satisfactory  proof  had  been 
furnished  that  they  proceeded  from  God.  Justin  reproaches 
the  Jews  with  their  obduracy  and  malice,  with  tiieir  deli- 
berate contempt  of  the  light  of  truth,  and  their  fraudulent 

^  Tlie  Editor  of  .Justin  lia.s  ucoordingly  remarked,  in  a  note  upon  the 
passage,  "  Si  sensus  consideretur,  satis  luoc  congruunt  cum  iis  ipue  Deus 
Adamo  dixit." 


Lett.  XV.]         TESTIMONIES   FROM   SECOND   CENTURY.        649 

supi)rcssioii  of  Messianic  texts  in  the  I'ropliets  and  tlie 
Psalms/  but  not  a  syllabic  does  he  whisper  of  Avhat  would 
have  been  still  more  conclusive  proof  of  their  terrible 
fatuity,  not  a  syllable  does  he  whisper  of  their  suppressing, 
in  addition  to  single  passages  and  isolated  texts,  whole 
books  of  the  Bible.  This  is  strange  if  the  Jews  indeed 
had  been  guilty  of  such  an  atrocity.  So  much  for  the  testi- 
mony of  Justin. 

2.  Your  next  witness  is  Irenseus  of  Lyons.  You  produce 
passages  from  him  in  which  it  is  conceded  that  he  quotes  the 
Apocryphal  books  of  Wisdom  and  of  Baruch,  and  the  cor- 
rupt additions  to  the  prophecy  of  Daniel.^ 

As,  however,  he  introduces  his  quotations  with  no  expres- 
sions of  peculiar  respect  or  religious  veneration,  which  show 
that  the  sentiment  is  not  simply  accommodated  because  it  ac- 
cords with  the  judgment  of  the  writer,  but  is  received  with 
deference  and  reverential  submission  as  an  authoritative 
statement  of  Divine  truth — as  Irenaeus  drops  no  hint  of 
any  uncommon  or  extraordinary  regard  for  the  documents 
in  question,  beyond  what  he  felt  for  other  works,  and  works 
confessedly  of  human  composition,  of  which  he  has  also 
availed  himself,  I  am  wholly  at  a  loss  to  determine  what 
use  you  can  possibly  make  of  his  testimony.  Where  does 
he  say  that  these  books  are  supernatural ly  inspired,  that 
they  constitute  a  part  of  the  Rule  of  Faitii — an  integral 
portion  of  the  written  revelation  which  God  has  given  of 
His  will?  What  language  does  he  apply  to  them  from 
which  it  can  be  gatiiered  that  he  looked  upon  them  as  pos- 
sessed of  ecpial  authority  and  entitled  to  equal  veneration 
with  the  Law,  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms?  If  the  mere 
fact  that  Irena?us  has  quoted  them  is  sufficient  to  canouize 
AVisdom,  Baruch  and  the  additions  to  Daniel,  Rome  must 

'  \'ide  Conference  with  Trypho,  §  72,  73,  for  a  speciiiu'ii  of  these  charges 
of  fraiuhilent  dealing  with  tlie  Scriptures. 

^Wisdom  vi.  20  is  quoted  Contra  Hieres,  lib.  iv.,  cap.  x.xxviii.;  Ba- 
ruch iv.  30,  37,  and  Baruch  v.  entire  are  quoted,  lib.  v.,  cap.  xxxv.  The 
story  of  Susannah  is  (quoted,  lib.  iv.,  cap.  xxvi. ;  Bel  and  the  I)ragon, 
lib.  iv.,  I'lp.  V. 


650     ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.    [Lett.  XV. 

considerably  enlarge  her  Canon,  since  the  same  argument 
would  embrace  in  its  sweeping  conclusion  divers  other 
books  which  have  never  been  esteemed  as  supernaturally 
inspired.  In  the  sixth  chapter  of  his  fourth  book  against 
heresies  he  quotes  a  passage  from  Justin  Martyr,  and 
endorses  the  sentiment  as  fully  and  completely  as  in  any  of 
the  cases  in  which  he  appeals  to  the  Apocrypha.^  In  the 
twenty-eighth  chapter  of  the  fifth  book  of  the  same  great 
work  a  sentence  is  introduced  from  Ignatius'  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,^  and  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  the  fourth  book 
a  nameless  author  is  commended,^  who  is  probably  the  same 
that  Eusebius  denominates  an  apostolical  presbyter.  But 
what  is  most  striking  and  remarkable  of  all,  in  the  twen- 
tieth chapter  of  the  fourth  book  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas 
is  not  only  quoted,  but  quoted  distinctively  as  Scripture} 
Now,  are  we  to  infer  that  Justin,  Ignatius  and  Hermas  all 
wrote  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  Or  shall  we 
not  rather  conclude  that  the  argument  from  Irenjeus  proves 
too  much,  and  therefore,  upon  logical  principles,  is  absolutely 
worthless  ? 

If  you  should  object  that  Baruch  is  quoted  under  the 
name  of  Jeremiah,  and  the  additions  to  Daniel  under  the 
name  of  that  Prophet,  you  yourself  have  supplied  us  with 
the  materials  of  solving  the  difficulty.  "  The  book  of  Baruch 
was  at  that  time  joined  to  the  book  of  Jeremiah,"  and  cou- 

1  Ka«  Ka?M^  lovarivog  ev  rw  Trpof  Map/c/wva  cwray/iari  ^ijaiv  'on  nvru  ni 
Kvgiu)  bv6'  av  ETreladeiEv^aXTiovdebv  Ka-ay^eAAovTi-iTaQarbv6Tj/MovQy6v  .  .  .  AVe 
cannot  complete  the  passage  from  Justin,  since  his  own  work  has  suffered 
more  terribly  from  the  ravages  of  time  than  even*that  of  Irenseus.  The 
Latin  is  as  follows :  Et  bene  Justinus  in  eo  libro  qui  est  ad  Marcionem  ait : 
Quoniam  ipsi  quoque  Domino  non  credidmem,  alterum  Deum  annuntianti, 
proeter  fabricalorem  etfactorem  et  nutritorem  nostrum. 

*  'Qq  hive  TiQ  Tuv  r]fieT£QUV^  6ia  t//v  ~pbc  Oebv  iiaQrvgiav  Karangidhg  ~Qbt;  d>/pia' 
on  (tItuc  ELfu  denv^  Kal  (h'  bSbvrup  Or/Qiuv  aM/dofia/^  Iva  KaOaQbg  aQzog  ivpefio). 

^  Et  bene  qui  dixit  ipsum  immensum  Patrem  in  Filio  mensuratum ; 
mensura  enim  Patris,  Filius,  quoniam  et  capit  eum. 

*  KaTiug  6w  hivEV  7/  yQa<pf]  1)  ?Jyov(Ta'  Tipcjrov  •navruv  Triarevcmv,  on  el(  eariv 
6  debg,  6  to.  Tzavra  Kriaag  Kal  Kuranriaag  kui  Tvoir/nac  ek  tov  jj}/  ovrog  kg  to 
Eivai  TO.  navra. 


Lett.  XV.]  TESTIMONIES    FROM    SIX'OND    CENTURY.        651 

seqliently  the  name  of  the  Prophet  must  have  been  used  in 
reference  to  the  book.  It  was  the  title  of  the  work  in  the 
Alexandrine  versions  which  were  then  in  use.  Those,  there- 
fore, who  appealed  to  it  under  that  title  no  more  expressed 
the  belief  that  Jeremiah  composed  it  than  those  who  refer 
to  the  Preaching  of  Peter  imply  the  conviction  that  Peter 
was  its  author.  Huetius  informs  us  that  in  the  ancient  list 
of  the  books  of  the  Bible,  which  served  as  a  guide  to  the 
copyists  in  their  labour  of  transcription,  the  name  of  JSa/'uc/t 
was  not  inti'odnced,  but  that  liis  work  Mas  embraced  under 
the  title  of  Jeremiah}  The  stories  of  Susannah  and  of 
Bel  and  the  Dragon  in  the  same  way  were  joined  to  the 
prophecy  of  Daniel,  and  were  consequently  quoted  under 
the  general  name  of  the  book.  As  we  cannot  for  a  moment 
sujjpose  that  Irenaeus  was  so  stupid  as  really  to  believe  that 
Jeremiah  was  the  author  of  a  work  which  in  its  very  first 
sentence  professed  to  be  written  by  another  man,  it  is  in- 
disputably clear  that  the  name  of  the  Prophet  is  no  other- 
wise employed  than  as  the  distinctive  designation  of  the 
book,  and  consequently  the  use  of  it  determines  nothing  in 
reference  to  the  question  whether  or  not  Baruch  was  re- 
garded as  an  inspired  production.  Jeremiah  and  Daniel, 
in  the  quotations  of  Ireujeus,  being  used  only  in  a  titular 
sense,  the  quotations  themselves  afford  not  a  particle  of 
proof  touching  the  point  which  you  introduced  them  to 
establish. 

3.  You  next  entertain  us  with  a  series  of  passages  from 
Clement  of  Alexandria — and  the  number  might  have  been 
greatly  increased — in  which,  because  he  cites  Ecclesiasticus 
and  Tobias  under  the  title  of  Scripture,  appeals  to  Wisdom 
as  the  work  of  Solomon,  and  distinguishes  it,  moreover,  by 
the  epithet  Divine,  quotes  Baruch  under  the  name  of  Jere- 
miah, and  honours  it,  in  addition,  as  Divine  Scripture,  you 
would  have  us  infer  that  he  regarded  these  works  as  an  in- 

'  Lil)rarii  volumiiia  sacra  exscribentcs,  in  coriiin  imlicc  Ilaniflii  nonicn 
11(111  repcrirent  qui  sub  .Jeremiw  titnlo  coiitiiiebatiir. — iJemunstratio,  Prop. 
iv.,  De  Proph.  Baruch,  p.  453. 


652      ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.    [Lett.  XV 

tegral  portion  of  the  Canon  of  Faith.  The  number  and 
variety  of  the  quotations  occurring  in  Clement  from  the 
Apocryphal  documents  should  be  no  matter  of  surprise 
when  we  call  to  mind  the  peculiar  esteem  in  which  they 
were  held  by  the  Jews  in  the  city  of  his  residence  and 
labours.  Surrounded  as  he  was  by  those  who  revered  thein 
as  monuments  of  their  national  history — the  history  of  a 
people  whom  God  had  distinguished  as  His  chosen  inher- 
itance, and  who  had  prepared  the  way  for  that  glorious  dis- 
pensation in  which  Clement  rejoiced — it  was  not  to  be  pre- 
sumed that  he  would  be  entirely  exempt  from  the  general 
sentiment,  especially  when  he  found  that  some  of  these 
books,  in  the  midst  of  many  defects,  were  largely  impreg- 
nated with  the  spirit  of  devotion.  He  would  naturally  be 
led  to  treat  them  with  the  same  partiality  which  the'  Jews 
entertained  for  them.  As  to  them  had  been  committed  the 
oracles  of  God,  and  the  Canon  of  inspiration  had  been  re- 
ceived at  their  hands,  his  feeling  in  regard  to  other  books 
preserved  among  this  same  extraordinary  people  would 
obviously  take  its  complexion  from  them.  He  would  con- 
sequently be  led  not  to  regard  the  Apocrypha  as  inspired — 
for  the  Jews  never  did  it — but  to  treat  them  as  religious 
and  devout  compositions,  to  study  them  for  the  purpose  of 
personal  improvement,  to  read  them  in  the  same  way  in 
which  Baxter  and  Owen  and  Howe  are  perused  in  the  mod- 
ern Church,  and  to  adorn  his  writings  with  contributions 
levied  from  their  stores,  as  Protestant  divines  appeal  to  the 
works  of  standard  though  uninspired  authors.  The  am- 
biguous titles  of  commendation  and  respect  which  Clement 
applies  to  them,  it  has  already  been  demonstrated,  do  not 
involve  the  belief  of  inspiration  ;  epithets  equally  distinctive 
and  laudatory  he  does  not  scruple  to  bestow  upon  divers 
other  books  ^  which  make  no  pretensions  to  a  place  in  the 
Canon — some  of  which  indeed  were  genuine,  others  grossly 
spurious,  others  still  absolutely  heathenish — books  Avhich, 
though  Clement  has  quoted  and  commended,  he  distinctly 
»  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  lib.  vi.,  c.  13. 


Lett.  XV.]  TESTIMONIES    FROM   SECOND    CENTURY.        653 

intiiiiatos  were  possessed  of  no  authority  as  an  inspired  rule 
of  fiith. 

If  now  it  can  be  shown  that  the  principle  upon  which 
you  have  made  this  Father  endorse  the  inspiration  of  Wis- 
dom and  Tobias,  Ecclesiasticus  and  Baruch,  will  also  canon- 
ize Barnabas  and  Hernias,  Clement  of  Rome,  and  if  not  the 
Gospels  according  to  the  Hebrews  and  Egyptians,  yet  cer- 
tainly the  Preaching  of  Peter,  the  fourth  book  of  Esdras, 
and  even  the  pretended  verses  of  the  Sibyl,  every  candid 
mind  must  acknowledge  that  your  argument  is  worthless, 
and  that  the  same  titles  which  are  Cdmmonly  employed  in 
introducing  quotations  from  the  canonical  books  may  also 
be  applied  to  other  works  which  are  confessedly  destitute 
of  any  claim  to  a  supernatural  origin. 

(1.)  Barnabas  is  repeatedly  cited  ^  in  the  books  of  the 
Stromata,  and  in  three  distinct  instances  receives  the  very 
appellation  of  authority  which  Clement  usually  bestows 
upon  Paul.  He  is  not  only  called  the  Apostle  Barnabas, 
but  in  one  remarkable  passage  seems  to  be  treated,  like  the 
oath  of  confirmation,  as  an  end  of  strife.^  "  For  this,"  says 
Clement,  "  I  need  not  use  many  words,  but  only  to  allege 
the  testimony  of  the  apostolic  Barnabas,  who  was  one  of  the 
seventy  and  fellow-labourer  of  Paul."  Now,  if  tiiere  ever 
was  an  officer  in  the  Christian  Church  entitled  to  command 
the  faith  and  to  bind  the  consciences  of  men,  that  officer  was 
the  Apostle.  Paul  usually  commences  his  Epistles  with  a 
distinct  assertion  of  his  apostolic  office,  and  the  Church 
itself  is  erected  "  on  the  foundation  of  the  Prophets  and 
Apjostles,  Jesus   Christ   Himself   being   the   chief   corner- 

^  Stromat.,  lib.  ii.,  cap.  vi.  (sub  fine),  'Elnd-ug  bw  6  ATr6a-o?.oc  Bagvdj3ac 
<j>7ialv:  "Rightly,  therefore,  says  the  Apostle  Barnabas."  This  is  pre- 
cisely the  form  in  wliich  Clement  sometimes  quotes  the  inspired  writers. 
For  example,  a  passage  from  the  Psalms  is  thus  introduced,  Strom.,  lib. 
ii.,  c.  XV.:  Ei/iorwf  bw  ftjalv  6  Tlpotir/Tric :  "Rightly,  therefore,  says  the 
Prophet."  For  other  quotations  from  Barnabas,  see  Strom.,  lib.  ii.,  cap. 
XV.,  xviii. ;  lib.  v.,  cap.  x. 

^  Strom.,  ii.  20 :  Ov  fioL  6ei  7r?.et6vuv  7.6yuv,  ■KaQadefikvu  fidprw  tov  a'szoaroX. 
iKfiv  BaQvaiiav,  etc.  It  is  remarkable  that  in  this  passage,  as  the  context 
will  show,  Barnabas  seems  to  be  quoted  to  prove  a  doctrine. 


654     ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.    [Lett.  XV. 

stone."  To  tlie  Apostles  the  promise  was  orio:inally  made 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  shoukl  be  imparted  as  a  Divine 
Teacher,  who  should  guide  them  into  all  truth  and  bring 
to  their  remembrance  the  instructions  of  the  Son.  To  call 
a  man  an  Apostle,  therefore,  would  seem  to  be  equivalent  to 
pronouncing  him  inspired.  It  was  an  office  furnished  with 
the  gift  of  supernatural  wisdom  and  infallible  knowledge, 
and  yet  Clement  does  not  scruple  to  distinguish  "  the  fel- 
low-labourer of  Paul"  with  this  high  title  of  authorit\\ 
Did  Clement  believe  that  Barnabas  was  actually  inspired? 
Let  a  single  fact  answer  the  question.  He  contradicts^  the 
exposition  which  Barnabas  had  given  of  the  Mosaic  prohi- 
bition, "Thou  shalt  not  eat  of  the  hyena  nor  the  hare," 
which,  says  Cotelerius,  "  he  would  by  no  means  have  done 
if  he  had  believed  that  Barnabas  was  entitled  to  a  place  in 
the  Canon." 

The  epithet  Apostle,  the  distinguishing  title  of  the  inspired 
founders  of  the  Church,  must  consequently  have  been  applied 
to  him  in  an  inferior  and  subordinate  sense.  To  me  it  seems 
self-evident  that  to  call  a  book  Scripture  is  no  stronger  proof 
of  inspiration  than  to  affirm  that  it  was  written  by  an  Apos- 
tle. In  fact,  it  is  much  more  likely  that  such  a  general 
term  as  Scripture,  in  its  own  nature  applicable  to  every 
variety  of  composition,  should  be  promiscuously  employed, 
than  that  an  official  designation  of  the  highest  rank  should 

1  "  There  is  no  inconsiderable  proof  to  be  made  out  of  the  works  of  Cle- 
mens Alexandrinus  himself  that  he  did  not  look  upon  this  Epistle  [Barna- 
bas'] as  having  any  manner  of  authority,  but  on  the  contrary  took  the 
liberty  to  oppose  and  contradict  it  when  he  saiv  fit.  One  instance  will  be  suf- 
ficient. In  Paedag.,  lib.  ii.,  c.  x.,  p.  188,  he  cites  the  explication  of  Bar- 
nabas on  that  law  of  Moses,  Thou  shalt  not  eat  of  the  hyena  nor  the  hare — 
that  is,  not  be  like  those  animals  in  their  lascivious  qualities.  He  does  not, 
indeed,  name  Barnabas  as  in  other  places,  but  nothing  can  be  more  evi- 
dent than  that  he  refers  to  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  ch.  x.  After  which 
he  adds,  that  though  he  doubted  not  but  Moses  designed  a  prohibition  of 
adultery  by  prohibiting  these  animals,  oi'  i-th'  ra  Tij6e  e^tfyZ/aei  tuv  (tvu3o^- 
\kuq  elptj/jhuv  d'yuaridE/iat,  yet  he  could  not  ayree  ivith  the  symbolical  expli- 
cation some  gave  of  the  place — viz.,  that  the  hyena  changes  its  sex  yearly, 
and  is  sometimes  male  and  sometimes  female,  as  Barnabas  saith.  After 
wliich  he  largely  disputes  against  the  fact." — Jones  on  Can.,  part  iii.,  c.  40. 


Lett.  XV.]  TESTIMONIES    FROM    SECOND   CENTURY.        655 

be  attributed  to  those  who  possessed  none  of  the  extraordi- 
nary endowments  that  give  a  right  to  the  title.  As,  then, 
uninspired  men  among  the  ancient  writers  were  unquestion- 
ably denominated  Apostles,  it  is  not  incredible  tliat  unin- 
spired b5oks  should  have  been  in  like  manner  denominated 
Scripture. 

(2.)  Clement  of  Rome  is  also  quoted^  in  the  Stromata, 
and  quoted  as  an  Apostle.  Upon  your  principle  of  reason- 
ing, accordingly,  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  ought  to  be 
inserted  in  the  sacred  library  of  the  Church. 

(3.)  But  how  will  you  dispose  of  the  Shepherd  of  Her- 
mas  ?  It  was  evidently  a  favourite  with  Clement,  and  is 
sometimes  described  in  language  which,  if  you  had  found  it 
in  connection  with  Wisdom  and  Tobias,  Ecclesiasticus  and 
Baruch,  you  would  perhaps  have  paraded  as  triumphant 
proof  of  their  Divine  authority.  Let  me  call  your  atten- 
tion to  two  remarkable  passages.  In  the  twenty-ninth  chap- 
ter of  the  first  book  of  the  Stromata  a  quotation  is  intro- 
duced from  the  Shepherd  in  these  words  :^  "Divinely,  there- 
fore, says  the  power  which  speaks  to  Hernias  by  revelation." 
Again,  at  the  close  of  the  first  chapter  of  the  second  book,'^ 
another  quotation  is  introduced  in  terms  almost  as  strong: 
"  The  power  that  appeared  in  vision  to  Hernias,  says."  Now 
here  is  a  power  which  speaks  divinely,  reveals  things  in 
visions,  and  performs  the  offices  in  regard  to  Hernias  which 
are  described  in  the  same  words  with  the  supernatural  com- 
munications of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  the  Prophets.  Did  Cle- 
ment mean  to  assert  that  the  Pastor  of  Hermas  was  an 
inspired  production?      Most  unquestionably  not,'*  and  yet 

'  Strom.,  lib.  i.,  c.  7  :  hv-'ma  6  K?.^//evc  h  rri  irpoQ  Kdpivdiovq  'nviCToli) , 
Kara  M^iv,  (pijal.  Again,  Strom.,  iv.,  c.  17 :  Na?  /x9/v  ev  rif  Tvpbc  KnpiMnvg 
£7naTuhJ  6  A~6a-o?.og  lOJ/fievc, 

2  9«wf  Totvvv  rj  AhvafJic  t)  '(J  Ep/xa  Kara  aTroKa?.uijuv  ?xi?.ovaa. 

'  4>5?(7^  yap  h  76)"  opdfiari  r<S  Ep/ia  ^  Avvnfitc,  i)  (jMVE'taa, 

*  That  the  Shepherd  of  Herma.s  never  wa.s  received  as  canonical  may 
be  gathered  from  the  following  testimonies:  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  lib.  iii.,  c.  iii., 
XXV.;  Tertull.,  de  Oratione,  c.  xii. ;  Origen,  Horn.  viii.  in  Numero.^  x.,  in 
Jos.  i.,  in  Psalm  xxxvii. ;  Athanasius,  de  Decrct.  Nicsenje  Synod,  et  in 
Epistola  Pasch. 


656     ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.    [Lett.  XV. 

he  has  employed  no  language  in  reference  to  any  of  the  books 
of  the  Apocrypha  which  is  more  explicit,  more  pointed 
or  more  decided  than  the  commendations  lavished  on  the 
Shepherd.  You  say  that  Wisdom  must  be  inspired  because 
Clement  calls  it  Divine  Wisdom,  but  Hernias  als6,  accord- 
ing to  him,  speaks  divinely.  Nay,  the  argument  for  Hermas 
is  far  more  powerful.  He  not  only  speaks  divinely,  he  speaks 
by  revelation;  he  declares  things  which  have  been  opened 
in  visions,  and  receives  communications  from  the  lips  of 
an  angel,  like  Daniel  in  his  prophecy  and  John  in  the 
Apocalypse. 

(4.)  The  Preaching  of  Peter,  a  document  which  Clement 
must  have  known  to  be  apocryphal,  he  not  only  cites,  but 
cites  distinctly  under  the  name  of  the  Apostle.  His  most 
usual  form  of  quotation  is,  "  Peter  says  in  the  Preachings," 
or  simply,  "  Peter  says,"  when  there  had  been  a  previous 
mention  of  the  book.^  Now,  upon  the  same  principles  of 
criticism  from  which  you  have  inferred  that  Clement  re- 
ceived Wisdom  as  the  work  of  Solomon,  it  must  also  be 
maintained  that  he  regarded  the  Preaching  as  a  genuine 
production  of  the  Apostle.  The  argument  is  just  as  strong 
in  the  one  case  as  it  is  in  the  other.  Because  a  passage  is 
introduced  from  Wisdom,  and  treated  without  scruple  as  a 
saying  of  Solomon,  you  boldly  conclude  that  Solomon  was 
declared  to  be  the  author  of  the  book,  but  precisely  the 
same  is  done  in  reference  to  Peter  and  the  Apocryphal  work 
which  bears  the  title  of  his  Preaching.  I  presume,  how- 
ever, that  you  will  not  think  of  contending  that  the  holy 
Father  looked  upon  the  Preaching  as  a  part  of  the  Canon, 
which  he  certainly  must  have  done  if  he  believed  it  to  be 
com])osed  by  one  of  the  original  Apostles.  His  meaning, 
you  would  probably  inform  us,  is  evidently  nothing  more 
than  this  :  "Peter  is  represented  as  saying"  in  a  book  wliich 

1  UiTQoc  kv  T(f>  KT/gvy/ian  Xeyei.  Strom.,  lib.  vi.,  c.  v.  Again,  in  the  same 
chapter,  referring  to  the  same  book — av-og  Siac^a^^aei  Ilf-pof.  Two  other 
references  are  in  the  same  chapter,  besides  various  others  in  the  first  and 
second  books. 


Lett.  XV.]         TESTIMONIES    FROM   SECOND   CENTURY.        657 

is  known  Ijy  the  title  of  his  Preachimj.  On  the  same  ground 
it  may  be  said  that  in  simiUvr  quotations  from  Wisdom  all 
that  the  Father  intended  to  assert  was,  that  Solomon  is  rep- 
resented to  have  said  in  a  book  which  is  distinguished  by 
his  name.  In  other  words,  in  both  instances  the  documents 
are  quoted  according  to  their  titles. 

(5.)  If  the  principle  be  true  which  you  have  assumed  as 
the  basis  of  your  argument  throughout  this  discussion — if 
the  principle  be  true  that  whatever  books  are  quoted  by  the 
Fathers  in  the  same  way  with  the  canonical  Scriptures  must 
themselves  be  inspired,  then  the  fourth  book  of  Esdras, 
which  Rome  rejects,  and  Bellarmine  declares  to  be  disfigured 
with  fables,  the  dreams  of  Rabbins  and  Talmudists,  deserves 
to  be  inserted  in  the  Sacred  Library.  In  the  sixteenth  chap- 
ter of  the  third  book  of  the  Stromata  you  will  find  a  pas- 
sage from  this  miserable  work,  standing,  in  your  view,  upon 
consecrated  ground  (for  you  frequently  insist  on  it  as  a 
matter  of  some  moment  when  a  text  from  the  Apocrypha 
is  introduced  in  connection  with  one  from  the  Canon),  with 
Jeremy  on  one  hand  and  Job  on  the  other.  Nay,  it  would 
seem,  if  we  confine  ourselves  simply  to  the  language,  that 
Esdras  was  regarded  as  a  fit  companion  for  these  venerable 
men.  His  book  is  quoted  as  the  w'ork  of  a  prophet — "says 
the  Prophet  Esdras."  ^ 

Now,  sir,  is  the  fourth  book  of  Esdras  inspired  ?  Listen 
to  Cardinal  Bellarmine :  "  The  third  and  fourth  books  of 
Esdras  are  apocryphal ;  and  although  they  are  cited  by  the 
Fathers,  yet,  without  doubt,  they  are  not  canonical,  since  no 
council  has  ever  referred  them  to  the  Canon.  The  fourth 
book  is  found  neither  in  Hebrew  nor  Greek,  and  contains 

1  ETTtKardparof  6i  tj  riiieQa,  iv  y  hix(hv.  Kal  fif/  iaru  kirevKria,  6  lEQe/iiag 
(pi](jlv.  oh  TT/v  yheaiv  UTrXug  iiriKaTaparov  Myuv,  oKk'  anoSvaneTuv  eizl  roig 
d/iapT^/iaai  tov  laov  Kal  r^  aneideig,'  enKpipei  yoxw  rf/d  ri  ydp  kyewifirfv^  tov 
PMireiv  k6-ovc  km  Trdvwf  Kai  (^leriAeaav  iv  ataxvvt]  at  ^fiipai  fiov-  avriKa 
■wavreg  ol  KTjQvaaov-eg  t^v  a'Arfieiav,  Jtd  t^v  ancideiav  tuv  aK0v6vTuv  cSkjkovtS 
TE  Kai  iKivAvvel'OV.  Ala  ri  yap  ovk  eyivero  ^  fiijTQn  ri/c  fivrQ^^  fiov  rd^fj  Iva  fi^ 
I6u  rbv  fioxOov  tov  IokijS,  kui  tov  k6-ov  tov  yevovr  Iffpai/?  •  E<T(?paf  o  -poi^r^f 
?.£yEi.  Strom.,  iii.,  c.  xvi. 
Vol.  in.— 42 


658      ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.    [Lett.  XV 

(cliaji.  vi.)  certain  fabulous  things  concerning  the  fish 
Henocli  and  Leviathan,  which  were  too  large  for  the  seas 
to  hold.  These  stories  are  the  dreams  of  Rabbins  and 
Tahnudists."  ^  And  yet  a  work  which  is  thus  summarily 
condemned  by  one  of  the  brightest  ornaments  of  your 
Church  is  quoted  by  a  Christian  Father,  in  connection  with 
Jeremiah  and  Job,  as  the  production  of  a  Prophet !  What  a 
commentary  upon  your  principles  of  criticism  ! 

(6.)  Let  me  now  call  your  attention  to  the  manner  in 
which  Clement  has  treated  the  verses  of  the  Sibyl.  I  shall 
not  stop  to  inquire  whether  the  collection  which  Justin, 
Theophilus  and  himself  commended  were  the  genuine 
verses  of  the  ancient  Sibyl  or  an  impudent  forgery  of  a 
later  date.  It  is  enough  for  my  purpose  to  observe  that 
the  book  extant  in  the  second  century  under  the  well-known 
name  of  the  Heathen  Prophetess  is  not  only  quoted  by 
Clement,  but,  what  is  much  more  remarkable,  distinguished 
as  prophetic  and  Divine  Scripture?  What  will  you  say  to 
this  astounding  fact  ?  Are  you  prepared  to  assert  that  he 
esteemed  the  Sibyl  of  equal  authority  with  Isaiah,  Jeremiah 
and  David,  or  regarded  her  verses  as  entitled  to  equal  vene- 

1  Apocryphi  sunt  liber  ....  tertius  et  quartus  Esdrre Quartus 

autem  Esdrae  citatur  quideni  ab  Ambrosio  ....  tamen  sine  dubio  non 
est  canonicus,  cum  a  nullo  concilio  referatur  in  canonem,  et  non  inveniatur 
neque  Hebraic^  neque  Grsce,  ac  demum  contineat  (cap.  6)  qujedam  fabu- 
losa  de  pisce  Henoch  et  Leviatham  quos  maria  capere  non  poterant,  qua 
Rabbinorum,  Talmudistarum  somnia  sunt. — Bellarm.  de  Verb.  Dei,  lib.  i., 
cap.  XX. 

^  As  a  specimen  of  his  treatment  of  the  Sibylline  verses,  take  the  fol- 
lowing passage,  Cohort,  ad  Gentes,  c.  8  : 

Qpa  Tolvirv,  Tuv  akluv  y^u'iv  -y  rd^ei  ngoSi^wa/Lievuv  ettI  rag  ■irpofETiKag  levai 
yQa(j)ag.  Kal  yag  ol  XQV^I^ol,  ~af  kig  rffv  OeoaCfietav  ?}filv  a<popfiac  hvagyearaTa 
■jTQOTel.vovTEC,defj.E?i-idvai  rfjv  a?J/d£iav  yQa^al  6e  ai  dslai,  Kai  7ro?uTEiai  auxpgoveg^ 
GvvTOfioi  auTTjQiaQ  66oi'  yvfival  KO/xfiuTiK^g,  mc  rf/g  inTog  Ka7i?ii<puvinc  Kat  aruh- 
/ivXlag,  Kal  Ko?i.aKkag  vTvdpxovc^ac,  aviaruaiv  ayx^/j.evov  vtvo  KOKiac  ~bv  avdQUTrov, 
VTTEgiddvaai  tov  d?uadov  tov  (iiuriKov,  fug  koI  ry  avry  ipuv^  7ro?M  OepaTrevoiiaai, 
anoTgETTovcai,  fih  ^fidg  rrjg  enii^t/filov  cnza-rjg,  irgorgE-ovaai  rfe  f//^ai'wf  etf 
■agivTTTov  currjgiav'  avrUa  ybvv  i]  ■Kgo^fjTLg  rjitiv  {laaru  TvguTt]  "Li^v'/J.a,  to  gafia 
TO  cuTf/giov.  Where  can  anything  be  produced  so  strong  in  favour  of  the 
Apocrypha  ? 


Lett.  XV.]         TESTIMONIES   FROM   SECOND   CENTURY.        659 

ration  with  tlic  Law,  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms  ?  And 
yet,  if  the  names  Scripture,  Divine  Scripture,  and  such  like 
expressions  are  sufficient  to  prove  inspiration — and  upon 
these  you  have  chiefly  relied  in  urging  tiie  testimony  of 
Clement  in  behalf  of  the  Apocryplia — the  books  of  the 
Sibyl  have  the  same  claims  to  a  place  in  the  Canon  as  Wis- 
dom, Tobias  and  Baruch.  The  "  two  passages "  ^  upon 
which  you  insist  with  peculiar  emphasis  will  be  found, 
Avhcn  carefully  examined,  to  afford  no  sort  of  countenance 
to  your  cause.  The  first  is  taken  from  the  twenty-first 
chapter  of  the  first  book  of  Stromata,  and  occurs  in  the 
midst  of  an  argument  to   prove  what  was  notoriously  a 

^  "  Let  me  now  call  your  attention  to  two  passages  from  the  first  and  the 
fourth  books  of  his  Stromaton,  from  which  we  may  learn  sometliing  of  the 
contents  of  the  Scripture,  as  it  was  in  the  hands  of  this  writer: 

'"  During  this  (the  Babylonian)  captivity,  lived  Esther  and  Mordecai, 
wliose  book  is  had,  as  also  that  of  the  Maccabees.  During  the  same  cap- 
tivity, Misael,  Ananias  and  Agarias,  unwilling  to  adore  the  statue,  were 
cast  into  the  furnace  of  fire  and  were  saved  by  an  angel  that  appeared  to 
them.  Then,  too,  Daniel  having  been  cast  into  a  pit  of  lions,  because  of 
Dagon,  and  nourished  by  Abacum  through  the  providence  of  God,  was 
saved  after  seven  days.  In  this  time,  too,  happened  the  sign  of  Jonah. 
And  Tobias,  because  of  the  angel  Eaphael,  takes  Sara  to  wife,  whose  first 
seven  husbands  Satan  had  slain  ;  and  after  his  marriage  his  father  Tobit 
recovers  his  sight.  Then  Zorobabel,  having  conquered  his  rivals  in  wis- 
dom, obtained  from  Darius  the  rebuilding  of  .Jerusalem.' 

"  The  next  passage  is :  '  How  great  is  the  perfection  of  Moses,  who  pre- 
ferred to  die  with  his  people  rather  than  to  remain  alone  in  life!  But 
Judith,  too,  made  perfect  among  women,  when  the  city  was  besieged, 
having  besought  the  elders,  went  into  the  camp  of  the  strangers,  despising 
every  danger  for  sake  of  her  country,  delivering  herself  to  her  enemies 
with  faith  in  God.  And  soon  she  received  the  reward  of  that  faitii  when 
she,  a  woman,  acted  manfully  against  the  enemy  and  obtained  the  head 
of  Holophernes.  And  Esther,  also,  was  perfect  in  faith,  freeing  Israel 
from  tyrannical  power  and  the  cruelty  of  a  satrap.  She,  a  single  woman, 
resisted  the  innumerable  armed  forces,  annulling  through  faith  the 
tyrant's  decree.  Him  she  rendered  meek  and  crushed  Aman  ;  and  l)y 
her  perfect  prayer  to  (iod  preserved  Israel  unhurt.  I  mentinn  not  Su- 
sannah and  the  sister  of  Moses ;  how  this  one  led  tlie  hosts  with  the  Pro- 
phet, the  chief  of  all  the  women  among  the  Hebrews,  renowned  for  wis- 
dom;  and  the  other  being  led  forth  even  to  death  for  her  high  purity, 
ivhen  she  was  condemned  by  her  incontinent  lovers,  remained  an  un- 
haken  martyr  of  chastity.' " 


660   AEGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.     [Lett.  XY- 

flivourite  dogma  with  the  Fathers,  that  lieathen  literature 
was  derived  from  the  Jews.  Clement  shoMs  that  Moses 
was  earlier  than  the  Greek  philosophers,  theogonists  and 
poets,  and  that,  consequently,  whatever  was  valuable  in 
Gentile  learning  might  be  historically  traced  to  the  pure 
fountains  of  Hebrew  theology.  He,  accordingly,  after 
having  given  a  synoptical  statement  of  Greek  chronologies, 
presents  us  with  a  compendious  recital  of  Jewish  histor>\ 
He  fixes,  in  the  first  place,  the  age  of  Moses,  then  exhibits 
in  rapid  review  the  leading  events  between  Moses  and 
David,  and  David  and  the  Captivity,  and  finally  mentions 
the  most  remarkable  facts  that  occurred  during  the  })eriod 
of  the  Exile.  In  connection  with  this  your  first  passage 
is  introduced.  Now,  all  that  Clement's  argument  required 
was  that  the  statements  which  he  gathered  from  the  Apoc- 
rypha should  be  historically  true.  It  was  not  important 
that  they  should  be  confirmed  by  Divine  inspiration  or  de- 
livered only  by  writers  who  were  guided  by  the  Spirit  of 
God.  It  was  enough  that  he  believed  them  to  be  true. 
Historical  credibility  and  supernatural  inspiration  are  not 
terms  of  the  same  extension.  The  histories  of  Herodotus 
and  Livy  are,  without  doubt,  to  be  received  as  authentic. 
Does  it  follow  that  they  must  also  be  regarded  as  inspired 
or  Divine?  Why  then  may  not  the  history  of  the  Macca- 
bees, the  narrative  of  Tobit  and  the  story  of  Susannah 
be  received  as  a  faithful  exhibition  of  the  facts  which  they 
record,  without  being  clothed  with  supernatural  authority? 
Clement  simply  informs  us  "  that  during  this  period  lived 
Esther  and  Mordecai,  whose  book  is  had,  as  also  that  of 
the  Maccabees."  But  is  there  a  single  syllable  which  in- 
dicates that  either  book  was  inspired  ?  We  know,  in  fact, 
that  Esther  was,  but  if  we  had  not  other  information  we 
should  never  be  able  to  collect  it  from  this  passage.  Again, 
he  says,  "Tobias,  because  of  the  angel  Raphael,  takes  Sara 
to  wife,  whose  first  seven  husbands  Satan  had  slain  ;  and 
after  their  marriage  his  father  Tobit  recovers  his  sight." 
In    other  words,  Clement  simply  abridges  a  well-known 


Lett.  XV.]         TESTIMONIES    FROM    SECOND   CENTURY.        661 

narrative  without  the  slightest  expression  of  opinion  as  to 
the  source  from  which  it  originated.  The  book  of  Tobit 
was  a  part  of  tlie  general  body  of  Jewish  literature,  and  as 
such  is  introduced  by  the  Father.  But  what  puts  it  beyond 
all'doubt  that  Clement  did  not  confine  himself  in  this  pas- 
sage, as  you  would  have  us  to  suppose,  to  the  canonical 
books,  the  very  next  sentence  to  the  last  which  you  have 
quoted  refers  to  the  fourth  book  of  Esdras  (which  liome 
declares  to  be  apocryphal),  and  mentions  a  fact  which  is 
recorded  in  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  that  fabulous  produc- 
tion. Clement  attributes  to  Esdras  a  renovation  of  the 
sacred  oracles,  in  evident  allusion  to  the  story  that  the  books 
of  the  Law  had  been  burnt  and  were  miraculously  restored 
after  the  captivity.  "  Esdras  afterwards  " — these  are  the 
words  of  the  Father ' — "  returned  to  his  country  and  by  him 
were  achieved  the  redemption  of  the  people  and  the  recen- 
sion and  reneioal  of  the  divinely-inspired  oracles." 

Your  second  passage,  which  may  be  found  in  the  nine- 
teenth chapter  of  the  fourth  book  of  the  Stromata,  is  little 
more  than  a  quotation  from  Clement  of  Rome's  Ei)ist]e  to 
the  Corinthians ;  and  as  you  have  already  insisted  upon  it 
as  found  in  the  apostolic  Father,  I  need  not  here  rej)cat  the 
answer  which  has  already  been  given.  That  Susannah — a 
fact  to  which  you  attach  no  small  degree  of  importance — 
should  be  named  in  connection  with  Moses,  Miriam  and 
Esther,  is  no  more  surprising  than  that  Socrates  should  have 
been  lauded  as  a  martyr  and  honoured  as  a  prophet  of  tlic 
Logos  of  God." 

4.  I  see  nothing  in  any  of  the  extracts  which  you  have 
given  from  Tertullian  that  can  possibly  be  tortured  into  the 
semblance  of  an  argument.  AV^ithout  insisting  on  the  point 
which,  I  think,  is  susceptible  of  an  easy  demonstration, 
that  some  of  the  passages   in  which  you  represent  him  as 

1  Kd<  HETO.  Ecrc'pa  eif  ri/v  Tvarpuav  yfiv  avai^evyvvai.  61  ov  yiverat  i)  h-o/.v- 
TQOxjtc  ~dv  2xidv  Kat  6  tCjv  deoTrvevaruv  avayvuQtafioc  Kai  avaKaivia/ioc  ^oylui; 
— Strom.,  lib.  i.,  cap.  xxi.  Irenffius  also  endorsied  the  same  story:  Contra 
Hasres.  lib.  iii.,  c.  xxi.;  of.  Enseb.,  11.  $}.,  lib.  v.,  cap.  viii. 

^  Strom.,  lib.  iv.,  cap.  xix.;  Jmtin  Martyr,  Apol.,  i.  5. 


662     ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.   [Lett.  XV. 

quoting  the  Apocrypha  are,  in  fact,  citations  from  the  ca- 
nonical books,  it  is  sufficient  to  observe  that  he  drops  not  a 
single  expression  from  which  it  can  be  necessarily  inferred 
that  he  believed  these  works,  however  freely  he  might  have 
used  them,  to  be  entitled  to  equal  veneration  and  respect 
with  the  undisputed  Canon  of  the  Jews.  If  he  appeals  to 
Wisdom  and  Barueh  under  the  names  respectively  of  Sol- 
omon  and  Jeremiah,  it  is  only  in  consequence  of  the  title  of 
the  books.  There  is,  in  fact,  as  much  evidence  that  he  de- 
ferred to  the  fourth  book  of  Esdras  as  canonical  authority 
as  you  have  been  able  to  adduce  in  favour  of  the  documents 
which  Rome  has  appended  to  the  Word  of  God.  In  the 
treatise  De  Habitu  Muliebri  there  occurs,  in  the  third 
chapter,  an  evident  allusion  to  the  apocryphal  story,  which 
the  leathers  seem  to  have  received  without  suspicion,  of  the 
miraculous  restoration  of  the  Jewish  books,  after  the  return 
from  the  Babylonian  captivity,  by  the  agency  of  Esdras. 
^'Omne  instrumentuvi'^  is  the  language  of  Tertullian,  "Judaicce 
Literaturce  per  Esdram  constat  restaur atum.'^ 

The  expression,  ocidi  Domini  altl,  which  may  be  found 
near  the  beginning  of  the  tract  De  Prescriptione  Haereti- 
corum,  seems  to  have  been  suggested  by  a  corresponding 
phrase  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  fourth  book  of  Esdras, 
Domine  cujus  oeidi  elevati  (v.  20).  Very  nearly  an  exact 
quotation  from  this  same  fabulous  production  is  introduced 
again  in  the  sixteenth  section  of  the  fourth  book  of  the 
work  against  Marcion,  Loquere  in  aures  audientium. 

It  is  susceptible  of  the  clearest  proof  that  Tertullian  did 
not  scruple  to  refer  to  a  book  as  Scripture  which  he  knew 
at  the  time  not  to  be  inspired.  So  that  if  your  argument 
had  been  even  stronger  than  it  is,  if  you  had  producetl — as 
you  have  not — citations  from  his  writings  in  which  this 
distinguished  Father  applies  to  the  Apocrypha  tlie  usual 
appellations  of  the  canonical  books,  your  conclusion  could 
not  have  followed  from  your  premises.  On  two  separate 
occasions  Tertullian  denominates  the  Pastor  of  Hernui.s 
Scrlj)iure,  and  yet  in  one  of^  the  instances,  in  the  very  con- 


Lett.  XV.J      TESTIMONIES   FROM   SECOND   CENTURY.  663 

nettion  in  wliic-h  he  refers  to  it  under  this  honourable  title, 
he  distinctly  testifies  that  it  possessed  no  Divine  authority, 
but  was  universally  rejected  as  aj)ocryphal  and  spurious.^ 
So,  aj^ain,  in  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  his  Dissertation  upon 
Baptism,  he  speaks  of  a  composition  which  he  declares  to 
be  spurious  as  the  Scripture  which  an  Asiatic  presbyter  had 
forged  under  the  name  of  Paul.^ 

The  author  of  the  Poetical  Books  against  Marcion,  which 
pass  under  the  name  of  Tertullian,  seems  to  have  entertained 
not  the  slightest  suspicion  that  this  "  Prince  of  the  Latin 
Church  "  called  into  question  the  integrity  or  completeness 
of  the  Hebrew  Canon.  He  informs  us  that  the  twenty-four 
wings  of  the  elders  in  the  Apocalypse  were  symbolical  rep- 
resentations of  the  twenty-four  books  which  compose  the 
Old  Testament ;  the  number  twenty-four  being  doubtless 
made,  as  we  learii  from  Jerome  that  it  was  sometimes  done, 
by  separating  Lamentations  from  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah, 
and  Ruth  from  the  book  of  Judges. 

"  Alarum  numerus  antiqua  volumina  signat, 
Esse  satis  certa  viginti  quatuor  ista 
Qure  Domini  cecinere  vias  et  tempora  pacis." 

Carm.  Advers.  Marc,  lib.  iv. 

It  may  be  gatheijed  as  an  important "  inference  from  the 
examination  which  has  just  been  instituted  into  the  leading 
documents  of  the  second  century,  that  all  writings,  pro- 
fessedly religious,  whether  human  or  supernatural  in  their 
origin,  were  referred  by  the  Fathers  to  a  common  class,  and 

'  The  second  pa-ssage  from  Tertullian  I  shall  insert  entire:  Sed  cedereni 
til)i,  si  Scriptura  Pastoris,  quae  sola  nia»chos  amat,  divino  instrumento  me- 
ruisset  incidi,  si  non  ab  omni  concilio  Eeelesiarum  etiam  vestrarum  inter 
Apocrypha  et  falsa  jndicaretur. — De  Pudicit.,  c.  x.  Tertullian  wrote  this 
when  he  was  a  Montanist.  That,  however,  is  of  no  importance,  since  the 
critical  [)urpose  for  which  it  is  adduced  is  to  show  that  he  may  call  a  book 
Scripture  and  yet  believe  it  to  be  apocryphal. 

^  Quod  si  qua;  Pauli  jierperam  Scripta  legunt,  exenij)luni  Thecl.e  ad 
licciitiain  muruTum  docendi  tingnendique  defendunt,  sciant  in  Asia  Pres- 
bytcruni,  qui  cam  Scripturam  construxit,  (juasi  titnio  Pauli  de  suo  cum- 
ulans,  convictnm  atque  confessum  id  se  araore  Pauli  fecisse,  loco  disces- 
sissc. 


664     ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.   [Lett.  XV. 

embraced  under  a  common  appellation.  This  was  done  in 
order  that  a  broad  line  might  be  drawni  between  the  monu- 
ments of  Pagan  literature  and  the  productions  of  those  M-ho 
sought  to  be  governed  by  the  fear  of  God.  The  sacred  and 
profane  were  not  to  be  promiscuously  blended  or  confounded ; 
the  acknowledged  compositions  of  the  sons  of  light,  unin- 
spired though  they  might  be,  were  not  to  be  included  in 
the  same  category  with  the  vain  discussions  and  false  phil- 
osophy of  the  children  of  darkness.  They  belonged  to  a 
different  department  of  thought — a  department  possessing 
much  in  common  with  those  Divine  Books  which  the  Spirit 
had  given  as  a  rule  of  faith.  Whatever  was  written  with 
a  pious  intention  and  promised  to  promote  holiness  of  life 
was  consequently  ranked  in  the  same  class  with  the  inspired 
Scriptures,  to  distinguish  them  effectually  from  the  whole 
body  of  heathen  literature.  When  the  Fathers,  therefore, 
use  such  terms  as  you  have  insisted  to  be  a  proof  of  inspi- 
ration, they  meant  no  more  than  that  the  writings  which 
they  quote  were  suited  to  develope  the  graces  of  the  Spirit 
and  to  quicken  diligence  and  zeal.  They  were  religious 
books — religious  in  opposition  to  profane — books  which  might 
not  only  be  perused  without  detriment,  but  studied  with 
positive  advantage.  Divine  Scripture  and  such  like  expres- 
sions were  terms,  to  speak  in  logical  language,  denoting  a 
subaltern  genus  which  embraced  under  it  two  distinct  species 
— inspired  and  uninspired  productions.  These  species  were 
distinguished  from  each  other  by  the  difference  of  their 
origin  ;  but  as  they  agreed  in  the  common  property  of  being 
subservient  to  the  interests  of  piety,  and  by  this  common 
property  were  alike  removed  from  all  other  works,  they 
received,  in  consequence,  a  common  name.  There  must 
have  been  some  phraseology  by  which  even  an  uninspired 
literature  that  the  faithful  might  commend  could  be  discrim- 
inated from  heathen  letters ;  and  as  the  leading  difference 
between  them  was,  that  one  was  Divine  in  its  tendencies 
and  ends,  while  the  other  was  sensual,  earthly  and  devilish, 
no  terms  could  possibly  have  been  selected  more  ai)propriate 


Lett.  XVL]     TESTIMONIES    FROM    THIRD    CENTURY.  665 

than  those  which  were  actually  applied  by  the  early  Fathers 
to  Hennas,  Barnabas  and  Clement,  as  well  as  to  Wisdom, 
Tobit  and  Barueh.  Let  the  reader,  then,  bear  in  mind  that, 
according  to  the  usage  of  the  Primitive  Church,  Divine 
Scripture  was  a  generic  term,  including  in  its  meaning  what- 
ever might  be  profitably  read — whatever  was  fitted  to  foster 
devotion  and  to  inspire  diligence  in  the  Christian  life,  and 
the  language  of  the  Fathers  will  present  no  difficulty. 


LETTER  XVI. 

TESTIMONIES    FROM    THE  THIRD    CENTURY. 

The  same  erroneous  principles  of  criticism  which  be- 
trayed the  weakness  of  your  cause  in  your  appeal  to  the 
Avritings  of  the  second  century  have  signally  misled  you  in 
the  inferences  which  you  have  drawn  from  what  you  call 
the  testimony  of  the  third  century. 

1.  Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage,  with  whom  you  com- 
mence your  account  of  this  period,  and  to  whom  you  seem 
Milling  to  defer  with  absolute  submission,  Avill  be  found,  I 
apprehend,  when  so  interpreted  as  to  be  consistent  with 
himself,  to  afford  no  more  countenance  to  the  adulterated 
Canon  of  Rome  than  his  celebrated  "master,"  Tertullian.' 
It  deserves  to  be  remarked,  though  I  shall  not  insist  upon 
the  fact  in  the  argument,  that  several  of  the  })assages  which 
you  have  culled  from  the  writings  of  this  distinguished 
Father  are  taken  from  a  treatise  upon  which,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  scholars,  no  certain  reliance  can  be  placed.  The 
Testimonies  against  the  Jews  to  (iuirinus,  even  by  those 
who  allow  it  to  be  genuine,  is  acknowledged  to  be  so  largely 
corrupted  that  it  is  impossible  to  distinguish  wdiat  is  truly 

'  Nunqiiaiu  ( 'yiirianum  absque  Tertulliani  lectioiie  imam  (liein  pnp- 
terisse,  ac  sibi  crelire  dicere  solitum:  Da  majjistriini,  Tcrtiilliaimni  sigiiif- 
icans. —  Vila  per  Jac.  Pamilium. 


Q66   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  XVI. 

Cyprian's  from  what  has  been  subsequently  added  by  others.^ 
A  work  of  this  sort  sliouhl  evidently  "  be  quoted,"  as  Lard- 
ner  has  justly  observed,  "with  some  particular  caution;" 
you,  however,  have  used  it  as  freely,  certainly  with  as  little 
appearance  of  suspicion,  as  if  you  had  been  perfectly  assured 
that  every  sentence,  line  and  word  stood  precisely  as  they 
came  from  the  hands  of  the  venerable  bishop  of  Carthage. 

(1.)  Your  favourite  Tobias  is  the  first  book  which  you 
attempt  to  canonize  by  the  assistance  of  this  Father,  and 
verily  you  could  not,  in  the  whole  range  of  the  Apocrypha, 
have  selected  a  work  more  admirably  adapted  to  furnish  a 
complete  refutation  of  your  whole  process  of  argument.  It 
is  admitted  that  Cyprian  has  repeatedly  quoted  this  docu- 
ment,  and  in  some  instances  quoted  it  as  Divine  Scripture. 
But  that  this  does  not  amount  to  an  admission  of  its  canon- 
ical authority — that  it  implies  no  more  than  that  the  work 
was  historically  true  in  its  statements,  and  suited  to  promote 
the  purposes  of  piety — is  plain  from  the  fact  that  while  he 
acknowdedges  it  to  be  Divine  Scripture,  he  virtually  asserts 
that  it  was  not  hispnred.  He  draws  a  broad  distinction  be- 
tween it  and  the  unerring  testimony  of  revealed  truth ;  and 
although  he  was  willing  to  accommodate  its  sentiments, 
breathe  its  devotion  and  commend  its  morality,  he  was  too 
well  acquainted  with  its  nature  and  origin  to  depend  upon 
it  for  a  proof  of  doctrine.     Accordingly,  in  the  treatise  De 

^  Stephen  Baluze  had  paid  great  attention  to  the  study  of  Cyprian,  and 
possessed  twenty-one  manuscripts  of  this  particular  treatise.  His  opinion, 
therefore,  is  entitled  to  great  weight :  Si  qua  sunt  loca  in  operibus  sancti 
Cypriani,  de  quibus  pronuntiari  non  possit  ea  certe  illius  esse,  id  vero  in 
primis  asseri  potest  de  libris  Testimonioruni  ad  Quirinuni.  Plures  enim 
codices  plus  habent  quam  vnlgatfe  editionis,  alii  minus.  Itaque,  quoniam 
impossibile  est  discernere  ea  qufe  vere  Cypriani  sunt  ab  iis  qufe  post  ilium 
a  studiosis  addita  sunt,  nos  retinuimus  ea  quae  reperta  nobis  sunt  in  anti- 
quis  exemplaribus  manuscriptis.  Porro  duo  tantum  priores  libri  extant 
in  editione  Spirensi,  in  veteri  Veneta,  et  in  e3,  quam  Kemboldus  procn- 
ravit.  Erasmus  tertiam  emisit  ex  codice  scripto  monasterii  Geniblacensis. 
Habui  autem  unum  et  viginti  exemplaria  velera  horum  librorum,  quorum 
tamen  quinque  habent  tantum  lil)ros  duos  priores. — Baluz.  Not.  ad  Cyprian., 
p.  596,  as  quoted  in  Lardner,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  17,  IS  (marg.j. 


Lett.  XVI.]     TESTIMONIES   FROM   THIRD   CENTURY.  667 

Opere  et  Elcenios)'nis,  having  cited  and  briefly  expounded 
the  passage,  "  Prayer  is  good  with  fasting  and  alms  "  (Tob. 
xii.  8),  he  proceeds : '  "  The  aijgel  reveals,  and  manifests, 
and  confirms  the  trutli  that  our  petitions  are  rendered  effect- 
ual by  alms,  that  our  lives  are  redeemed  from  peril  by  alms, 
and  that  by  alms  our  souls  are  delivered  from  death.  Nor 
do  we  allege  these  things,  dearest  brethren,  so  as  not  to 
prove  what  the  angel  Raphael  has  said  by  the  testimony  of 
truth.  In  the  .Vets  of  the  Apostles  the  truth  of  the  fact  is 
established;  and  that  souls  are  delivered  by  alms,  not  only 
from  the  second,  but  also  from  the  first,  death,  is  confirmed 
alike  by  fact  and  experience."  He  tlien  appeals  to  the  his- 
tory of  Tabitha,  and  to  divers  passages  in  the  canonical 
Scriptures,  as  the  proof  of  what  he  had  cited  from  the  book 
of  Tobit.  What  is  this  but  a  virtual  declaration  that  this 
document,  however  valuable  on  other  accounts,  was  no  part 
of  the  rule  of  faith,  and  could  not  be  adduced  to  bind  the 
conscience  with  the  authority  of  God  ?  Cyprian  appeals  to 
it,  but  instead  of  relying  upon  it,  as  he  does  upon  the  Acts, 
Gospels,  Genesis  and  Proverbs,  proceeds  to  confirm  the  sen- 
timent which  he  had  quoted  by  what  he  denominated  the 
testimony  of  truth.  This  phrast,  if  we  may  judge  from  the 
connection,  evidently  means  the  testimony  of  Him  who  can- 
not lie — who,  embracing  the  past,  the  present,  and  the 
future  in  a  single  glance  of  unerring  intuition,  is  emphat- 
ically the  Father  of  lights.  His  law,  according  to  the 
Psalmist,  is  the  fountain  of  truth,  and  His  testimony  must 
be  regarded  as  the  seal  of  truth.  AVhen  Cyprian,  there- 
fore, applies  this  expression,  as  he  unquestional)ly  does  in  the 
present  instance,  to  the  plain  declarations  of  the  Acts,  the 
Gospels,  Genesis  and  Proverbs,  he  can   mean   nothing  less 

1  Kevelat  angelus  et  manifestat,  et  firinat,  elceniosynis  petitiones  nostras 
efficaces  fieri,  eleemosynis  vitani  cle  periculis  redemi,  eleeinosynis  a  morte 
animort  liberari.  Nee  sic,  fnitres  carissimi,  ista  proferririms,  iit  iioii  quod 
Raphael  angeliis  dixit  veritatis  testimonio  coinproheinus.  In  Actibus 
Apostolorum  faeti  fides  posita  est,  et  quod  eleemosynis  non  tantum  a  se- 
cunda,  sed  a  j)rima  morte  aniniie  liherentur,  gestie  et  iinpletie  rei  proba- 
lione  compertum  est. —  g  vi. 


668    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  XVI. 

than  tliat  these  books  are  to  be  received  as  authoritative 
standards  of  faith ;  and  when  he  distinguishes  the  teaching 
of  Tobit,  as  we  see  that  he  has  done,  from  the  Testimony  of 
Truth,  what  other  idea  can  be  conveyed  but  that  this  work 
is  not  entitled  to  a  place  in  the  category  of  inspired  Scrip- 
tures ?  We  have,  consequently,  his  own  statements  against 
your  inference.  You  maintained  that  he  deferred  to  Tobit 
with  the  same  submission,  veneration  and  respect  which  he 
awarded  to  the  books  that  are  not  disputed ;  he,  on  the 
other  hand,  assures  us  that  while  he  believed  it  to  be  Divine 
Scripture,  a  godly  and  edifying  book,  he  still  regarded  it 
merely  as  a  human  production,  which,  so  far  from  being 
competent  to  regulate  our  faith,  needed  itself  to  be  con- 
firmed by  a  higher  sanction  than  the  authority  of  its  author 
— even  the  Testimony  of  essential  Truth. 

(2.)  You  next  attempt  to  show  that  Cyprian  received  "Wis- 
dom and  Ecclesiasticus  as  inspired  compositions,  and  your 
proof  is  derived  from  the  fact  that  he  repeatedly  quotes 
them  under  the  name  of  Solomon,  and  through  Solomon 
attributes  them  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  seldom  speiiks  of 
them  absolutely  and  without  qualification  as  the  testimony 
of  God,  but  whenever  he  alludes  to  them  as  the  work  of 
the  Spirit  it  is  plainly  on  the  supposition  that  they  were 
actually  written  by  Solomon.  In  other  words,  the  evidence 
is  precisely  the  same  that  he  held  them  to  be  Solomon's  as 
that  he  held  them  to  be  supernatural ly  inspired.  He  intro- 
duces, for  instance,  a  passage  from  the  third  chapter  of 
Wisdom — the  first  upon  your  list — in  these  words :  ^  "  By 
Solomon  the  Holy  Spirit  hath  shown  and  forecautioned  us, 
saying;"  and  again  :^  "The  Holy  Spirit  teaches  by  Solo- 
mon."    So,  too,  Ecclesiasticus  is  quoted  in  these  words  :^ 

1  Per  Salomonem  Spiritus  Sanctus  ostendit  et  prsecinit,  dicens.— />e 
Exhort.  Martyrii,  ?  xii. 

■^  Re-1  et  per  Siilomonern  docet  Spiritus  Sanctus,  eos,  &c.—De  }rortaUtate,  \ 
xxiii. 

■'  Sed  et  Salomon  in  Spiritu  Sancto  constitutus  testatur  et  docet.— 
Epid.  iii. 


Lett.  XVI.]       TESTIMONIES    FROM    THIRD    CENTURY.  669 

"Solomon   also,  guitlcd  by  the   Holy  Ghost,  testifies  and 
teaches." 

It  is  evident  from  these  passages — and  they  are  the  strong- 
est which  can  be  produced — that  it  is  only  a  conditional 
inspiration  which  Cyprian  attributes  to  Ecclesiasticus  and 
Wisdom.  If  he  believed  that  they  were  written  by  Solo- 
mon, then  he  unquestionably  received  them  as  inspired. 
Now,  you  have  confidently  asserted  the  consequent  of  this 
proposition,  but  have  nowhere  condescended  to  furnish  us 
with  any  portion  of  the  evidence  by  which  the  antecedent 
is  established.  Every  Protestant  is  willing  to  concede  that 
if  these  books  were  the  productions  of  Solomon  they  deserve 
to  be  inserted  in  the  sacred  Canon.  But  the  real  question 
is,  whether  or  not  Solomon  was  their  author.  If  there  is 
no  satisfactory  evidence  that  Cyprian  believed  them  to  be 
his,  then  there  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  that  he  believed 
them  to  be  inspired.  They  came  from  God,  in  the  view  of 
this  Father,  only  on  the  supposition  that  they  came  from 
Solomon.  But  where  is  the  proof  that  Cyprian  believed 
thefii  to  have  been  written  by  him  ?  On  this  point,  which 
is  vital  to  your  argument,  you  have  left  us  completely  in 
the  dark.  If  it  can  be  shown,  however,  that  he  did  not 
Ijelieve  that  Solomon  was  their  author,  then  he  furnishes  no 
testimony  Avhatever  in  behalf  of  their  inspiration,  since  we 
can  never  reason,  in  hypothetical  propositions,  from  the 
removal  of  the  antecedent  to  the  establishment  or  removal 
of  the  consequent.  Cyprian  says  that  they  were  inspired 
if  Solomon  wrote  them,  but  where  does  he  say  that  Solo- 
mon wrote  them  ?  Unless  he  has  said  so,  your  conclusion 
is  drawn  from  no  premises  which  he  has  supplied.  Now,  I 
maintain  that  there  is  satisfactory  evidence  that  neither 
Cyprian  nor  any  other  intelligent  Father  really  believed 
that  Wisdom  and  Ecclesia.sticus  were  the  compositions  of 
Solomon.  Augustine  has  distinctly  informed  us  that  though 
they  were  usually  ascribed  to  him,  it  was  not  because 
they  were  reputed  to  be  his,  but  because  they  ^vere  imita- 
tions of  his  style.     In  the  twentieth  chapter  of  the  seven- 


670    ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  XYI. 

teenth  book  of  the  treatise  De  Civitate  Dei,  after  having 
mentioned  the  three  books,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes  and  Can- 
ticles, which  were  universally  acknowledged  to  have  been 
by  Solomon,  he  adds:^  "Two  other  books,  one  of  which  is 
called  Wisdom,  the  other  Ecclesiasticus,  have  also  from  cus- 
tom, on  accomit  of  some  similarity  of  style,  received  their 
titles  from  the  name  of  Solomon.  That  they  are  not  his, 
however,  the  more  learned  entertain  no  doubt."  So  also  in 
his  Speculum  de  libro  Ezechielis:^  "Among  these" — that 
is,  the  books  written  before  the  advent  of  Christ,  which  the 
Jews  rejected  from  the  Canon,  but  which  the  Christian 
Church  treated  with  respect — "  among  these  are  two  which 
by  many  are  called  by  the  name  of  Solomon,  on  account,  as 
I  suppose,  of  a  certain  similarity  of  style,  for  that  they  are 
not  Solomon's  admits  of  no  question  among  the  more 
learned.  It  does  not  indeed  appear  who  was  the  author  of 
the  book  of  Wisdom,  but  that  the  other,  which  we  call 
Ecclesiasticus,  was  written  by  a  Jesus  who  was  surnamed 
Sirach  must  be  acknowledged  by  all  who  have  read  the 
book  through."  % 

If  now  Cyprian  were  among  the  more  learned  doctors  of 
the  Church — and  you  have  given  him  a  distinguished  place 
in  your  introductory  eulogium  on  his  character — he  did  not 
believe,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Augustine,  that  these 
disputed   books  were  written   by  Solomon,  and   therefore 

1  Prophetasse  etiam  ipse  reperitur  in  suis  libris,  qui  tres  recepti  sunt  in 
auctoritatem  canonicam,  Proverba,  Ecclesiastes,  et  Canticum  Canticorum. 
Alii  vero  duo,  quorum  unus  Sapientia,  alter  Ecclesiasticus  dicitur,  propter 
eloquii  nonnullam  similitudinem,  ut  Salomonis  dicantur,  obtinuit  consue- 
tudo:  non  autem  esse  ipsius,  non  dubitant  doctiores. — S.  Augustini  Epif' 
copi  de  Civitate  Dei,  lib.  xvii.,  cap.  xx. 

^  Sed  non  sunt  omittendi  et  hi,  quos  quidem  ante  Salvatoris  adventum 
constat  esse  conscriptos,  sed  eos  non  receptos  a  Judaeis,  recipit  taraen  ejus- 
dem  Salvatoris  Ecclesia.  In  his  sunt  duo  qui  Salomonis  a  pluribus 
appellantur,  propter  quandara,  sicut  existinio,  eloquii  similitudinem. 
Nam  Salomonis  non  esse,  nihil  dubitant  quique  doctiores.  Nee  tamen  ejus 
qui  Sapientice  dicitur,  quisnam  sit  auctor  appai-et.  Ilium  vero  alterum, 
quem  vocanius  Ecclesiasticum,  quod  Jesus  quidam  scripserit,  qui  cognonii- 
natur  Sirach,  constat  inter  eos  qui  eundem  librum  totum  legerunt. — S. 
Augustini  Episcopi  Speculum  de  libro  Ezeckielis. 


Lett.  XVI.]       TESTIMONIES    FROM    THIRD   CENTURY.  671 

there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  that  he  hekl  them  to  be 
inspired.  In  fact,  it  is  altogetlier  incredible  that  any  critic 
of  ordinary  intelligence  could  be  persuaded  that  an  inspired 
man  was  the  author  of  a  work  which  not  only  bore  upon  its 
face  the  name  of  another  individual,  but  contained  in  its 
preface  a  satisfactory  account  of  its  original  composition  in 
one  language  and  its  subsequent  translation  into  another. 
Here  is  a  book  Avhich  professes  to  have  been  written  -by  one 
Jesus.  The  proof  of  its  inspiration  turns  upon  the  fact 
that  it  Avas  not  written,  as  it  professes  to  be,  by  Jesus,  but 
by  Solomon ;  that  is,  it  can  only  be  proved  to  be  inspired 
by  being  proved  to  open  with  a  lie — in  other  words,  it  is 
shown  to  be  the  testimony  of  infallible  truth  by  being  shown 
to  contain  a  palpable  falsehood !  The  ridiculous  evasion  of 
Bellarmine,  that  Jesus  diligently  collected  and  reduced  into  a 
volume  the  maxims  of  Solomon,  so  that  Ecclesiasticus  might 
with  propriety  be  attributed  to  each,^  is  refuted  by  the  Pro- 
logue which  is  prefixed  to  the  book.  It  is  there  stated  that 
the  original  author,  "  when  he  had  much  given  himself  to 
the  reading  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  and  other  books 
of  our  (Jewish)  fathers,  and  had  gotten  therein  good  judg- 
ment, was  drawn  on  also  himself  to  write  something  per- 
taining to  learning  and  wisdom."  This  looks  very  little 
like  collecting  and  digesting  the  maxims  of  Solomon. 
Ecclesiasticus  evidently  purports  to  be  an  original  work, 
suggested  not  by  the  study  of  Solomon  alone,  but  by  the 
whole  Canon  of  the  Jews.  It  is  true  that  it  is  an  imitation, 
and  in  many  instances  a  very  successful  imitation,  of  the 
pointed  and  sententious  style  of  the  wise  monarcli  of  Israel. 
Besides  the  similarity  of  style,  which  was  perhaps  the 
original  ground  for  attributing  this  work  to  Solomon,  two 
other  reasons  may  be  assigned  for  quoting  both  it  and  Wis- 
,dom  under  his  name,  as  we  sec  that  Cyprian  has  done.     In 

^  At  Epiphanius  in  luercsi  Anomoeorum,  et  alii  nonnulli  aiictoreni  libri 
hujus  Jesuni  Sirach  esse  volunt.  Eespondeo,  facile  potui.sse  fieri,  ut  .Jesiia 
Sirach  sententias  Salomonis  a  se  diligenter  collectas  in  ununi  vohinien 
redegerit,  ita  uterque  auctor  dici  poterit. — De  Verbo  Dei,  lib.  i.,  cap.  xiv. 


672    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  XVI. 

the  first  place,  it  was  a  rapid  and  convenient  mode  of  refer- 
ence. The  name  of  Solomon  was  a  part  of  the  professed 
title  of  the  book  of  Wisdom,  but  as  it  w^as  notorious  that 
he  was  not  the  author  of  it,  it  would  have  been  silly,  hyper- 
critical nicety  always  to  have  resorted  in  referring  to  it  to 
the  awkward  periphrasis,  the  author  of  the  book  called  the 
Wisdom  of  Solomon.  To  quote  it  by  its  title  implied  no  be- 
lief that  its  title  was  just.  Clemens  Alexandrinus  a])peak'd 
to  the  fourth  book  of  Esdras  under  the  name  of  the  Prophet 
Ezra.  Baruch  is  frequently  cited  under  the  name  of  Jere- 
miah, and  the  Preaching  of  Peter  was  accommodated  by 
Clement  under  the  name  of  the  Apostle. 

As  the  book  of  Ecclesiasticus,  on  account  of  its  striking 
analogy  to  the  compositions  of  Solomon,  was  in  all  proba- 
bility designated  by  his  name — just  as  we  call  a  great  poet 
a  Homer,  or  a  great  conqueror  another  Alexander — the 
Fathers  would  feel  no  liesitation  in  adopting  a  common  and 
popular  title,  especially  when  the  work  itself  contained  an 
effectual  antidote  against  all  erroneous  impressions.  "  In 
the  Gospel  of  Luke,"  says  Rainold,^  "  Christ  is  called  the 
sou  of  Joseph,  as  likewise  in  the  Gospel  of  John.     Luke, 

^  Apud  Lucam  Christus  Joseph!  filius  dicitur,  similiter  et  apud  Johan- 
nem.  Quanquam  Lucas  alibi  id  explicat,  dicens  Christum  fuisse  fiUum 
Josephi  ut  putabatur,  et  Philippns  ad  Nathanselem  Invenimm  (inquit)  Je- 
sumfilium  Joseph,  de  quo  scripsit  Moses  in  lege  et  Prophetce.  Atqui  Moses 
in  lege  adumbravit  Christum  per  Melchisedecum  sine  patre  ut  honiinem, 
sine  matre  ut  Deum.  Et  prophetarum  princeps  Esaias,  Ecce  (inquit) 
virgo  coneipiet  et  pariet  filium,  unde  patet  Christum  ut  hominem  non  habu- 
isse  patrera,  adeoque  poterat  Philippus  prius  intellexisse  Josephum  non 
fuisse  vere  patrem  Jesu.  Si  intellexerit  ergo  ad  commoditatem  significa- 
tionis  sic  loquutus  est  sed  ignorarit  id  Philippus,  sciebat  certe  beata  virgo 
eum  a  Spiritu  Sancto  conceptum  esse,  ipsa  tanien  apud  Lucam,  Ecce  (inquit) 
pater  tuus  et  ego  cruciati  quoerebavius  te.  Cum  sciret  non  fuisse  Josephum 
Christi  patrem,  appellat  tamen  Josephum  patrem,  primo  quia,  sic  putaba- 
tur esse,  secundo  propter  reverentiam,  qua  usus  est  Christus  erga  Jose- 
phum, tanquam  patrem.  Eodem  modo  verisimile  est  Patres,  ciim  citarint 
libros  Sapienti  et  Ecclesiastici  sub  nomine  Salomonis,  usos  esse  eo  nom- 
ine, non  quod  Salomonis  esse  putarint  sed  significandi  commoditatem 
Bequutos,  appellationem  vulgo  usitatam  retinuisse. — De  Libris  Jpocryphis, 
Prcelectio  xix.,  vol.  i.,  p.  154. 


LErr.  XVI.]      TESTIMONIES   FROM   THIRD   CENTURY.  673 

however,  elsewhere  explains  it,  saying  that  Christ  was  the 
son  of  Joseph,  as  it  loas  supposed,  and  Philip  says  to 
Nathanael,  We  have  found  Jesus  the  son  of  Joseph,  of  whom 
Moses  in  tlie  law,  and  the  pro[)hets  have  written.  Yet 
Moses  in  the  Law  adumbrated  Christ  by  Melchisedec  with- 
out father  as  man,  without  mother  as  God ;  and  Isaiah,  the 
prince  of  Prophets,  says.  Behold,  a  virgin  shall  conceive  and 
bring  forth  a  son.  Hence,  it  is  evident  that  Christ  as  man 
had  no  father,  and  so  Philip  might  have  known  that  Joseph 
was  not  in  reality  the  father  of  Jesus.  If  he  did  know 
it,  he  used  the  phrase  only  for  convenience  of  reference. 
But  if  Philip  were  ignorant  of  the  fact,  the  blessed  Virgin 
certainly  knew  that  Jesus  had  been  conceived  by  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  yet  she  says  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke, 
Behold,  thy  father  and  I  have  sought  thee  sorrowing. 
Though  she  knew  that  Joseph  was  not  the  father  of  Christ, 
yet  she  calls  him  his  father ;  in  the  first  place,  because  he 
Avas  reputed  to  be  so,  and  in  the  second  on  account  of  the 
filial  reverence  with  which  Christ  uniformly  treated  Joseph. 
In  the  same  way  it  is  likely  that  the  Fathers,  in  citing  the 
books  of  Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus  under  thfe  name  of 
Solomon,  did  so,  not  because  they  imputed  them  to  him,  but 
for  convenience  of  reference  they  retained  a  common  and 
popular  designation."  To  this  may  be  added,  as  the  same 
learned  writer  has  intimated,  that  they  used  the  name  of 
Solomon  to  conciliate  greater  reverence  and  esteem  for  the 
sentiments  which  they  had  chosen  to  accommodate.  These 
books  were  so  strikingly  analogous  to  those  of  Solomon  that 
they  might  be  studied,  in  the  opinion  of  Fathers,  with  safety 
and  advantage.  Their  authors,  whoever  they  were,  breathed 
the  spirit  of  devotion,  and  hence  their  productions  were 
api)lauded,  as  the  modern  Church  warmly  commends  Owen, 
Charnock  and  Scott.  Wisdom,  Eccl&siasticus,  Tobit  and 
Judith  were  regarded  as  good  elementary  works  of  religion, 
which  might  be  placed  with  success  in  the  hands  of  novices, 
to  prepare  them  for  the  higher  mysteries  of  the  faith.     Such, 

Vol.  III.— 4S 


674   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Lett.  XVI. 

at  least,  is  the  testimony  of  Athanasius.^  In  his  famous 
Festal  Epistle,  after  having  given  a  catalogue  of  the  inspired 
books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  he  adds :  "  There 
are  also  other  books  besides  these,  not  indeed  admitted  to  the 
Canon,  but  ordained  by  the  Fathers  to  be  read  by  such  as 
have  recently  come  over  [to  Christianity],  and  who  wish  to 
receive  instruction  in  the  doctrine  of  piety — the  NVisdoni  of 
Solomon,  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach,  and  Esther,  and  Judith, 
and  Tobit,  the  Doctrine  of  the  Apostles,  as  it  is  called,  and 
the  Shepherd." 

But  whether  the  explanations  which  have  been  given  of 
the  manner  in  which  the  Fathers  quote  Wisdom  and  Eccle- 
siasticus  be  satisfactory  or  not,  one  thing  is  absolutely  cer- 
tain— that  their  ascribing  them  to  Solomon  in  incidental  ref- 
erences is  no  proof  whatever  that  they  really  believed  them 
to  be  his.  Bellarmine  appeals  to  Basil  as  having  cited 
Ecclesiasticus  in  this  way,  and  yet  Basil  unequivocally 
asserts  that  only  three  books,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes  and 
Canticles,  were  written  by  Solomon.  Jerome,  too,  has  been 
guilty  of  the  same  method  of  citation,  and  has  just  as 
strongly  affirmed  that  no  other  books  can  be  properly 
ascribed  to  Solomon  but  those  which  are  found  in  the  Jew- 
ish Canon.2     It  is  unnecessary  to  adduce  more  examples. 

1  Earl  Kcu  etequ  jiijT/Ja  tovtuv  e^udev,  oh  Kavovi^dfiEva  fiev,  TETVizuiitva  6i 
TT-apa  7UV  ^arepuv  hvayivioaKeadai  tolq  apri  Tvpoffepxo/ievoic  nal  ^ovloiihotq 
KaTTjxha^M  Tov  tvq  evcelieiaq  Uyov.  I,o<j>ia  'LokofiavTOQ,  aaX  mtpia  lipax,  nal 
Eoi??)p,  Kot  lov6l^,  ml  To/3mf,  km  6i6axv  Kalovfihvv  tuv  ATroardTMV,  kuI  b 
Tloifi^v.—Athanasius,  Epistola  Festalis,  0pp.  i.,  p.  961,  ed.  Bened. 

2  Ita  videtis  judicio  Cani  posse  negari  consequutioiiem  illius  argumenti: 
patres  hos  libros  d  Salomone  scrlptos  putarunt,  ergo  sunt  ab  eo  scripti.  Nunc 
istins  enthymematis  antecedens  examinemus.  Patres  existimarunl  hos 
libros  d  Salomone  scriptos,  ad  quod  confirraandumprimum  enthymema  per- 
tinet,  patres  citarunt  hos  libros  sub  nomine  Salomonis,  ergo  existimarunt  ab  eo 
scriptos.  Hie  qiioque  claudicat  consequutio;  in  illis  enim  qui  librum 
Sapientije  sub  Salomonis  nomine  citarunt,  fuit  Basilius,  qui  tamen  aperte 
inficiatur  eum  a  Salomone  scriptum,  ubi  tres  oranino  sacros  libros  Sal- 
omoni  adscribit,  rph?  ^aaaf  iyvufiev  tov  la?Mfi(ovToc  roc  ~payfiareia(. 
Hieronymus  etiam  ex  eomm  numero  est,  qui  Ecclesiasticura  sub  nomine 
Salomonis  citant.  At  alius  est  idem  Hieronymus,  ubi  tres  libros  a  Salo- 
mone scriptos  dicit,  Fertur  (inquit)  et  alius  qui  a  Siracide  sci-iptus  est, 


Lett.  XVI.]    TE.STIMON1ES    FltOM    THIRD   CENTURY.  675 

One  single  instance  is  .sufficient  to  iniiini  u  conclusion  drawn 
from  tlie  only  circumstance  which  can  be  tortured  into  any- 
thing like  evidence  that  Cyprian  or  any  other  Father  im- 
puted the  documents  in  question  to  the  pen  of  Solomon.  It 
Avill  now  be  remembered  that  the  leading  proposition  of 
your  argument  was  this :  If  Cyprian  believed  that  Solomon 
^vas  the  author  of  Ecclesiasticus  and  AVisdora,  he  believed 
them  to  be  inspired.  It  was  incumbent  on  you  to  prove  the 
antecedent,  which  you  have  not  so  much  as  attempted  to  do. 
I,  on  the  other  hand,  have  shown  that  it  is  false,  or,  at  least, 
that  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  in  its  favour.  The 
argument  then  stands  in  this  way  :  If  Cyprian  believed  that 
Ecclesiasticus  and  Wisdom  were  written  by  Solomon,  he 
believed  them  to  be  inspired.  But  he  did  not  believe  that 
they  were  written  by  Solomon.  Here  in  my  opinion  the 
.syllogism  halts — claudicat  coiisecutio — and  Wisdom  and 
Ecclesiasticus  are  left  precisely  where  they  were  before  you 
appealed  to  the  testimony  of  Cyprian. 

(3.)  The  claims  of  Baruch  and  the  additions  to  Daniel  to 
a  place  in  the  Canon  you  endeavour  to  vindicate  by  the 
same  process  of  argument  which  we  have  seen  to  be  worth- 
less in  the  case  of  Ecclesiasticus  and  AVisdom.  Because 
Cyprian  has  quoted  the  one  under  the  name  of  Jeremiah, 
and  the  other  under  the  name  of  Daniel — that  is,  because 
lie  has  referred  to  the  books  by  their  notorious  and  ordinary 
titles — you  would  have  us  to  believe  that  he  really  looked 
upon  these  venerable  Prophets  as  the  authors  of  the  docu- 
ments in  question.  The  futility  of  such  reasoning  has 
already  been  sufficiently  exposed,  and  therefore,  without 
further  ceremony,  we  may  dismiss  the  testimony  of  Cyprian 
in  behalf  of  these  Avorks  as  having  no  existence  but  in  your 
own  mind. 

(4.)  His  quotations  from  the  Maccabees  are  no  more 
remarkal)le  tiian  a  quotation  which  he  has  made  from  the 
third  l)ook  of  Esdras ;  and  if  his  conviction  of  the  historical 

Sdlomonis ;  el  adhuc  alius  rl'evtk-lypaipoc  qui  ikipienlia  Salomonis  iiiscribi- 
tur. — Rainold.,  De  Libris  Apocryphis,  Prcelectio  xviii.,  vol.  i.,  p.  152. 


676    ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSKD,  [Lett.  XVI. 

credibility  of  tlie  narrative  in  the  one  case  is  sufficient  to 
canonize  the  books,  his  full  and  cordial  accommodation  of  a 
sentiment  in  the  other  must  be  equally  valid  for  the  same 
purpose.  The  truth  is,  the  argument  is  stronger  in  behalf 
of  Esdras,  since  Cyprian  not  only  quotes  it,  but  quotes  it 
in  the  very  same  form  in  which  Christ  and  His  Apostles 
were  accustomed  to  cite  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament. 
"  Custom  without  truth,"  says  he,^  "  is  only  antiquity  of 
error :  wherefore,  having  abandoned  error,  let  us  follow 
truth,  knowing  that  truth,  according  to  Esdras,  conquers, 
as  it  is  Avritten,  '  Truth  endureth  and  is  ahvays  strong :  it 
liveth  and  conquereth  for  evermore.'  " 

2.  In  what  you  call  the  testimony  of  Hippolytus  and 
Dionysius  you  have  presented  us  with  nothing  which 
requires  an  answer.  They  quote  and  comment  on  passages 
contained  in  the  disputed  books,  but  I  have  yet  to  learn 
that  anything  can  be  gathered  from  a  fact  of  this  sort 
but  the  existence  of  the  works  in  the  age  of  the  MTiters, 
and  their  knowledge  and  probable  approbation  of  their  con- 
tents. But  you  were  truly  bold  to  insist  on  what  is  called 
the  Apostolical  Constitutions  as  evidence  in  your  favour. 
It  is  true  that  the  Apocrypha  are  quoted  in  this  collection, 
but  it  is  not  true  that  the  citations  which  occur  imply  tliat 
there  was  any  Divine  authority  in  the  MTitings  from  which 
they  were  made.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  in  the  fifty- 
seventh  chapter  of  the  second  book  a  catalogue  or  list  of  the 
books  which  were  directed  to  be  read  in  the  churches,  and 
not  a  syllable  is  whispered  concerning  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasti- 
cus,  Tobit,  Judith,  or  any  of  the  works  which  Rome  has 
added  to  the  Canon — a  pregnant  proof  that  to  quote  a  book 
and  to  believe  it  inspired  are  two  very  different  things. 
The  only  books  which  are  mentioned  in  connection  with 
the  Old  Testament  are   the   Pentateuch,  Joshua,  Judges, 

^  Nam  consuetude  sine  veritate,  vetustas  erroris  est.  Propter  quod  relicto 
errore  sefjuanuir  veritatem,  scientes  quia  et  apud  Esdram  Veritas  vincit, 
sicut  scriptum  est :  Veritas  manet  et  invalesoit  in  aeternum,  et  vivit  et 
obtinet  in  sa^cula  sfeculonim. — Epistola  Ixxiv. 


Let.  XVII.]     TESTIMONIES   FROM    FOURTH   CENTURY.        677 

Kings,  Chronicles,  the  Return  ironi  Jxihyh>n  by  Ezra — 
that  is,  Ezra,  Nehemiah  and  Esther,  David,  Solomon,  Job 
and  the  sixteen  I'rophets.'  Here,  then,  is  the  Canon  of  the 
Apostolical  Constitutions;  and  though  it  is  a  document  which 
is  notoriously  spurious,-  yet  as  you  have  chosen  to  appeal  to 
its  authority,  I  hope  that  in  this  matter  you  Avill  abide  by 
its  decision. 


LETTER    XYII. 

TESTIMONIES    FROM    THE    FOURTH    CENTURY. 

You  open  the  testimony  of  the  fourth  century  with  the 
Council  of  Nice.  It  is  wholly  immaterial  to  the  argument 
whether  I  "  despise  its  decisions "  or  reverence  its  decrees, 
since  the  only  question  before  us  has  reference  to  the  Canon, 
which,  whether  right  or  wrong,  it  believed  to  be  Divine.  I 
may  observe,  however,  that  while  I  embrace  its  admirable 
creed  with  cordial  acquiescence,  I  cannot  but  regret  that  so 
distinguished  and  venerable  a  body  should  have  sanctioned 
the  principle  of  religious  persecution,  and  indirectly,  if  not 
positively,  endorsed  the  odious  doctrine  that  pains,  penalties 
and  civil  disabilities  are  appropriate  instruments  for  pro- 
moting uniformity  of  faith.  The  age  of  Constantine  is,  no 
doubt,  a  period  in  the  history  of  the  Church  upon  Avhich 
Romanists  love  to  linger.  Then  were  laid  the  foundations 
of  that  secular  authority  and  that  joyous  and  imposing 
pomp  of  ceremonial  which  subsequently  enabled  the  ]Man 
of  Sin  to  tread  upon  the  necks  of  kings,  to  bind  their 
nobles  with  fetters  of  iron,  and  to  banish  all  that  was  pure 
and  spiritual  from  the  temple  of  God. 

I  '  AvayivuGKerij  to,  McwTfWf  Kal  'lijaov  tov  Nan^*  rd  tuv  KpiTuv  Koi,  tuv 
^aailetuv  to.  tuv  irapay.ec-of/tvuv  koi  ra  r^f  eirav66ov  wpbg  Tovroig  ra  tov 
'lu/i  Kal  TOV  Ilo?.ofio)vog  Kal  Ta  tuv  eKKahhKa  irpoifriTuv  ava  6vo  fie  yevo- 
uivuv  nva)'vojaudTon>,  erepoc  tiq  toL'c  tov  Aafiid  ipa?./J:To)  vfivovq. 

'^  For  a  clear  and  satisfactory  dis.sertatioii  upon  the  value  of  the  Apos- 
tolical Constitutions,  see  Lavdner,  vol.  iv.,  p.  194,  et  set]. 


678    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVII. 

"  Ah,  Constantine  !  of  how  much  ill  was  cause, 
Not  thy  conversion,  but  those  rich  domains 
That  the  first  wealthy  pope  received  of  thee  ! " 

1.  But  discarding  all  discussion  of  the  merits  of  the 
council,  and  of  the  peculiar  corruptions  of  the  age  in 
which  it  was  convened,  let  us  confine  ourselves  to  the  mat- 
ter in  hand,  and  endeavour  to  ascertain  whether  the  wick- 
edness and  folly  in  reference  to  the  Scriptures  were  perpe- 
trated at  Nice  which  upward  of  twelve  hundred  years 
afterward  formed  a  fit  introduction  to  the  atrocities  of 
Trent.  To  discover  the  opinions  of  a  council  the  simplest 
method  is  to  appeal  to  the  acts,  the  authentic  proceedings, 
of  the  body  itself;  but  as  in  the  creed,  canons  and  synodical 
epistle,  the  only  clear  and  unquestionable  monuments  of  the 
doings  of  Nice  that  have  survived  the  ravages  of  time,  not 
a  single  hint  is  given  touching  the  books  which  the  Fathers 
received  as  inspired,  you  have  been  obliged  to  resort  to  col- 
lateral and  indirect  evidence,  and  that  of  the  vaguest  kind. 
The  testimony  upon  which  you  have  relied  is  a  passage  of 
Jerome  and  a  few  quotations  found  in  the  work  of  an 
obscure  scribbler,  Gelasius  Cyzicenus.  In  replying  to  your 
arguments  I  shall  reverse  the  order  in  which  you  have 
marshalled  your  witnesses,  and  begin  with  Gelasius. 

(1.)  This  writer  has  given  us  a  history  of  the  Council  of 
Nice  written  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the  body  had 
been  dissolved,  collected  from  documents  of  Avhich  nothing 
is  known  with  certainty,  and  consequently  nothing  can  be 
pronounced  with  confidence.  He  pretends  to  have  pre- 
served the  discussions  and  debates  which  occurred  in  the 
synod  betwixt  the  orthodox  and  the  Arians,  but  speeches 
reported  under  such  circumstances  are  evidently  entitled  to 
small  consideration.^  Worthless,  however,  as  his  history  is, 
you  have  appealed  to  it  as  possessing  upon  this  subject 
"  some  value."     "  At  the  time,"  you    inform   us,   "  when 

^  The  reader  may  form  some  conception  of  the  value  of  this  historian 
from  the  "  Admonitio  ad  Lectorem  "  prefixed  to  his  work  in  Labbieus  and 
Cossart,  vol.  ii.,  p.  103. 


Lkt.  XVII.]     TESTIMONIES    FROM    FOURTH    CENTURY.        679 

Gelasius  wrote  there  were  many  monuments  ol'  the  Conneil 
of  Xiee  still  extant  wliieli  have  since  perished.  The  senti- 
ments of  the  Fathci's  could  be  easily  ascertained,  and  it  is 
utterly  incredible  that  if  they  were  unanimously  opposed  to 
the  insi)iration  of  any  books  of  the  Old  Testament  save 
those  in  the  Jewish  Canon,  he  would  have  dared  them  to 
assert  the  contrary  or  to  put  in  their  mouths  expressions 
directly  opposed  to  what  they  would  liave  used."  Let  this 
be  granted,  and  where  is  the  proof  that  Gelasius  attributed 
to  the  orthodox  any  sentiments  or  "put  into  their  mouths" 
any  speeches  inconsistent  with  a  cordial  rejection  of  the 
whole  Apocrypha  from  the  list  of  inspired  compositions? 
In  the  passages  which  you  have  adduced  he  simj)ly  repre- 
sents the  Fathers  as  quoting  the  book  of  Baruch  under  the 
name  of  Jeremiah  and  the  book  of  Wisdom  under  the  name 
of  Solomon.  Now  it  is  perfectly  conceivable  that  they 
might  have  appealed  to  these  works  in  their  arguments 
against  the  Arians,  as  setting  forth  the  sentiments  of  God's 
ancient  and  chosen  people  upon  the  matter  in  dispute,  with- 
out implying,  or  intending  to  imply,  that  their  declarations 
were  to  be  received  as  authoritative  statements  of  truth. 
Their  object  might  have  been  to  show  that  the  Church, 
under  the  former  dispensation,  was  as  far  removed  from 
Arianism  as  under  the  latter.  These  books  were  legitimate 
sources  of  proof  as  to  the  actual  creed  of  the  Jews,  or  at 
least  a  part  of  the  nation,  in  the  age  of  the  writers,  and 
there  was  consequently  no  impropriety  in  using  them  as  a 
])robable  exposition  of  the  national  faith.  In  fact,  they  have 
been  used  in  modern  times  for  precisely  the  same  purpose 
in  the  able  work  of  Allix,  entitled  "The  Judgment  of  the 
Jewish  Church  against  the  Unitarians."  "We  make  use 
of  their  authority,"  says  he,  "not  to  prove  any  doctrine 
which  is  in  dispute,  as  if  they  contained  a  Divine  Kevela- 
tion  and  a  dcc-ision  <»f  an  insj)ired  writer,  but  to  witness 
what  was  the  faith  of  the  Jewish  Churcli  in  the  time  when 
the  authors  of  those  A])Ocryphal  books  did  flourish."' 
'  See  AUix's  Jiuhjment  of  the  JevUh  Church,  etc.,  c.  v.,  ji.  G(i. 


680   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVII. 

It  is,  hence,  by  no  means  certain  that  the  Fathers  of 
Nice,  if  indeed  they  quoted  the  Apocrypha  at  all,  intended 
to  sanction  the  inspiration  of  the  works.  That  they  referred 
to  Baruch  under  the  name  of  Jeremiah,  and  to  Wisdom 
under  the  name  of  Solomon,  proves  no  more  than  that  these 
were  the  ordinary  and  familiar  titles  of  the  books.  If,  how- 
ever, you  insist  on  the  proposition  that  nothing  was  quoted 
against  the  Arians  which  was  not  regarded  by  the  council 
as  inspired,  and  admit  that  Gelasius  is  a  fit  witness  of  what 
was  quoted,  your  argument  will  prove  a  little  too  much.  This 
writer  testifies  that  the  Fathers  cited  two  grossly  spurious 
documents — not  only  cited  them,  but  cited  them  as  Scrip- 
ture, and  cited  them  apparently  to  prove  a  doctrine.  In  the 
eighteenth  chapter  of  the  second  book  of  his  history  he 
exhibits  at  length  the  reply  of  the  bishops  to  the  Arian 
exposition  of  Proverbs  viii.  22 :  "  The  Lord  possessed  me 
in  the  beginning  of  His  ways,  before  His  works  of  old." 
In  the  course  of  the  reply,  which  was  intrusted  to  Euse- 
bius,  these  words  occur :  ^  "  Enough  has  been  said,  as  it 
appears  to  me,  and  the  proofs  have  clearly  shown,  O  philos- 
opher, that  the  Son  of  God  was  the  former  of  the  rational 
wisdom  spoken  of  by  Solomon,  and  of  all  the  creatures,  and 
was  not  a  mere  instrument.  But  in  order  to  exhibit  the 
exposition  of  this  matter  in  a  clearer  light,  and  to  come 
more  speedily  to  the  sense  of  the  passage,  we  will  declare 
certain  things  from  the  Scripture.  Moses,  the  Prophet, 
when  about  to  die,  as  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  the 

1  iKava  hvat  jioL  doKli  ra  "XexdevTa.  Koi  ai  arroSei^eic  ■jzapeanjaav^  u  ^lAdaotpe^ 
oTi  6  vibg  Tov  Qeov  kariv,  6  koX  tt/v'"  kv  YioXofiuvTC  ri  ?ioyi(TTiKfjv  ccxpiav 
KTiaac,  Kal  navra  to.  ktigtUj  Kai  ova  kpyaMiov,  Iva  6e  aoi  aaoearepav  tt/v  dh/S^ 
Tuv  TvpayjxaTuv  anddei^iv  napaffTT/au/nev,  Kal  rdxiov  eXdujuev  ewl  tov  vSftov  tov 
Tvpdy/xaToc,  Kal  ttjq  deupiag  dvrov,  to.  ek  ttjq  ypa(p^c  Affw/zev.  /lie^Tmv  6  Trpo^r/TtiQ 
Muaf/g  k^ievai  tov  jSiov,  wf  yeypaTTTai  kv  ^ifiTM  ava  IrjipeuQ  Mwcr^wf,  izpodKaT^a- 
dfiEvog  Irjcovv  vibv  "Nav^,  Kal  dialeydfiEvog  irpbc  avrov^  e^tj'  koi  TvposOEaaaTO 
HE  o  Geof  TTpo  KaTaPoAiJQ  Kdafiov,  hvai  jxe  ttjc  ihaBI/KTig  avTov  fiEaiTijv.  Kal  kv 
(H^Tm  "kdyuv  fivaTiKW  MoxyeuQ,  avTog  Mua^g  TrpoEiTTE  irk  pi  tov  Aa/?(c^  koi 
2o\o/ic)V7og. — Gelasii  Historia,  lib.  ii.,  c.  18.  For  a  particular  account  of 
the  apocryphal  book  called  Assumption  of  Moses,  see  Fabricius,  Cod. 
Pseud.  V.  T.,  torn,  i.,  p.  839. 


Let.  XVII.]     TESTIMONIES    FROM    FOURTH    CENTURY.        681 

Assunii)ti()n  of  Moses,  called  to  him  Joshua,  the  son  of 
Nun,  and  thus  addressed  him:  'God  foresaw,  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world,  that  I  should  be  the  mediator  of 
His  testament,'  and  in  the  book  of  the  Mystic  Speeches  of 
Moses,  IVIoses  himself  spake  beforehand  of  David  and 
Solomon." 

Here  are  two  books,  both  of  them  confessedly  apocryphal, 
one  called  the  Assumption  of  Moses,  the  other  his  Mystic 
Si)eeclies,  which  the  histoi-ian  Eusebius,  in  the  name  of  all 
the  bishops,  is  represented  by  Gelasius  as  employing  under 
the  title  of  Scripture  against  the  anonymous  chami)ion  of 
Arianism.  Now,  you  must  either  admit  that  Nice  held 
these  works  to  be  inspired,  or  deny  that  their  citation  of  a 
book  as  Scripture  is  any  proof  that  the  Fathers  received  it 
as  inspired.  If  you  take  the  first  proposition,  and  main- 
tain that  Nice  canonized  these  books,  why  has  Rome  re- 
jected them  ?  Upon  what  authority  is  the  decision  of  the 
first  general  council  set  at  naught  and  despised?  Upon 
what  grounds  do  you  concur  with  Nice  in  receiving  Judith, 
Baruch  and  Wisdom,  and  refuse  your  assent  when  you  have 
precisely  the  same  evidence  that  it  sanctioned  the  inspiration 
of  these  legends  of  Moses?  But  you  cannot,  as  a  consistent 
Romanist,  admit  that  the  Assumption  of  ]\Ioses  was  treated 
as  canonical  at  Nice.  If  not,  then  its  quotation  of  a  book 
is  no  proof  that  the  work  was  held  to  be  inspired,  and  you 
have  consequently  lost  your  labour  in  proving  that  it  quoted 
Baruch,  Judifli  and  Wisdom.  It  deserves,  however,  to  be 
remarked,  that  if  you  had  succeeded  in  your  design  you 
would  have  sapped  the  foundation  of  the  principal  excuse 
Avhich  Bcllarmiue  offers  for  the  heresy  of  Jerome  in  reject- 
ing all  of  the  Apocrypha,  with  the  exception  of  Judith, 
from  the  Canon.^  "I  admit,"  says  he,  "that  Jerome  was 
of  this  opinion,  because  as  yet  no  general  council  had  de- 
termined anything  concerning  any  of  these  books,  with  the 

^  Adniitto  iffitiir  Ilieronyiniiiii  in  ea  fuis-se  oi)inii)iu>,  (|uia  noiKliiin  gen- 
erale  concilium  do  his  libris  aliciuid  .statuerat,  c.xccpto  libro  Judilli,  <iuera 
etiam  Hioronyniiis  po.stea  recepit. — Bellar.,  De  Verbo  Dei,  lib.  i.,  cap.  x. 


682    ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.   [Let.  XYII. 

exception  gf  Judith,  which  Jerome  afterwards  received." 
And  yet,  according  to  you,  a  general  council  had  de- 
termined something.  Baruch  and  Wisdom  were  put  upon 
the  same  footing  with  Judith.  Thus  priest  contradicts 
priest,  and  Jesuit  devours  Jesuit. 

(2.)  Let  us  now  turn  to  the  testimony  of  Jerome.  In 
his  preface  to  the  book  of  Judith  he  observes:  "But  be- 
cause the  Council  of  Nice  is  read  to  have  counted  this  book 
in  the  number  of  Sacred  Scriptures,  I  have  complied  with 
your  request,  or  rather  demand."  ^  It  will  be  observed  here 
that  Jerome  does  not  state  the  fact  upon  his  own  authority — 
he  was  not  even  born  when  the  Council  of  Nice  was  assem- 
bled— but  upon  the  authority  of  a  nameless  icriter,  whose 
book  it  does  not  appear  had  ever  been  seen  by  himself.  "  It 
is  read,"  says  he;  but  where  and  by  whom?  To  these  ques- 
tions the  Father  furnishes  no  manner  of  reply.  AVe  have, 
then,  not  Jerome,  but  an  anonymous  scribbler,  of  whom 
nothing  is  known  but  his  obscurity,  testifying  to  the  recep- 
tion on  the  part  of  Nice  of  the  book  of  Judith.  Com- 
pletely, therefore,  without  foundation  is  the  bold  statement 
of  Bellarmine,  that  Jerome  opposed  the  authority  of  Nice 
to  the  opinion  of  the  Jewish  Church,  and  was  himself  a 
witness  that  the  Nicene  Synod  had  received  the  book  of 
Judith  into  the  Canon  of  Scripture.^  That  somebody,  no 
one  know^s  wdio,  had  somewhere,  no  one  knows  Avhere,  read 

1  Sed  quia  hunc  librum  Sjnodus  Nicfena  in  nnmero  S.  Scripturarum 
legitur  computasse,  acquievi  postulationi  vestrte,  immo  exactioni. — S.  Hier., 
Prcef.  in  Libr.  Judith. 

"  Librum  Judith  egregium  testimonium  habere  a  Synodo  Nica?na  1,  om- 
nium synodorum  generalium  prima  et  celeberrima,  testatur  S.  Ilieronymus 
prsefatione  in  Judith.  Ac  ne  forte  Kemnitius  dicat  librum  Juditli  sanctum 
esse,  sed  non  plenw  auctoritatis  ad  fidei  dogmata  confirmanda,  notanda 
sunt  verba  S.  Hieronymi :  asserit  enim  sanctissimus  Doctor,  apud  Hebraeos 
librum  Judith  numerari  in  Sanctis  libris,  qui  tamen  non  sint  idonei  ad 
dogmata  fidei  comprobanda :  deinde  huic  Hebrsieorum  .sententife  opponit 
Nicaense  Synodi  auctoritatem :  igitur  te.ste  Hieronymo,  Niciiena  Synodus 
librum  Judith  ita  retulit  in  numerum  sacrorum  librorum,  et  eum  ido- 
neum  esse  censuerit  ad  fidei  dogmata  confirmanda. — Bellar.,  De  Verbo  Dei, 
lib.  i.,  cap.  xii. 


Let.  XVII.]       TESTIMONIES    FROM    FOURTH    CENTURY.       683 

or  heard  that  this  was  tlie  case,  is  the  sum  and  substance  of 
Avhat  Jerome  asserts — a  precious  testimony  truly! 

1st.  That  Jerome  himself  did  not  believe  his  anonymous 
witness,  that  he  referred  to  the  matter  simply  as  a  rumour 
and  not  as  a  fact,'  may  be  gathered  from  his  own  account 
of  the  book  of  Judith.  In  his  preface  to  the  books  of  Sol- 
omon he  says,  "The  Church  indeed  reads  the  book  of  Ju- 
dith, but  does  not  receive  it  among  the  canonical  Scrip- 
tures."'^ Again,  in  the  Prologus  Galeatus:  "the  book  of 
Judith  is  not  in  the  Canon."  ^  If  he  believed  that  the 
Council  of  Nice  truly  represented  the  faith  of  the  Church, 
and  yet  believed  that,  according  to  the  faith  of  the  Church, 
the  book  of  Judith  was  not  canonical,  he  must  have  be- 
lieved that  the  nameless  author  to  whom  he  alludes  had 
either  ignorantly  or  wilfully  lied.  There  was  no  alterna- 
tive. If  this  author  told  the  truth,  Judith  was  canonical, 
and  the  Church  received  it  as  such;  but  Judith  was  not 
canonical,  says  Jerome,  and  the  Church  did  not  receive  it 
as  such ;  therefore  this  author  could  not  have  spoken  the 
truth.  This  reasoning  can  be  evaded  only  by  saying  that 
Nice  did  not  represent  the  faith  of  the  Church;  that  is,  that 
the  three  hundred  and  eighteen  bishops  who  were  asseml)lcd 
there  did  not  know  the  books  which  were  generally  received 
as  inspired — a  supposition  too  absurd  to  receive  a  moment's 
attention. 

2dly.  It  is  susceptible  of  the  clearest  demonstration  that 
the  prominent  actors  in  the  Synod  of  Nice  received  neither 
Judith  nor  any  of  the  books  which  Protestants  reject  as  a 

'  Erasmus  and  Stapleton  so  understood  the  niatttr.  Erasinns  says  :  Xoii 
affirniat  Ilit'ronynius  approbattim  fuisse  liunc  libruni  Juditli  in  Syuodo 
Nicfena,  sed  ait,  in  nuniero  est  literaruin  Legitur  coniputasse.— ^/o-tHt.,  in 
Cens.  Prce/at.  Jlieron.  Stapleton  says:  Ilieronynius  lioc  de  Synodo  Xinena 
tantuni  ex  t'ania  referre  videtur.  Synodus,  inquit,  Lr(jilur  coinputasse, 
nam  alibi  aperte  dubitat. — Lib.  ix.,  Princip.,  c.  xii. 

^  Sicut  ergo  .Judith  et  Tobi  et  Maehabseorum  libros  legit  quidem  Ec- 
clesia  sed  inter  canonicas  Scripturas  non  recipit. — S.  liter.,  PrccJ.  in  Libr. 
Salom. 

^  LibtT  .Juditii  non  est  in  canone. — S.  Ilier.  in  Prol.  Gal. 


684    ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.    [Let.  XVII. 

part  of  the  Canon;  a  fact  wliich  is  wholly  inexplicable  if 
Jerome's  witness  is  worthy  of  credit.  Eusebius,  who,  ac- 
cording to  Gelasius,  was  more  than  once  the  organ  of  the 
council,  and  who  certainly  must  have  known  all  of  import- 
ance that  occurred  in  the  body,  has  not  only  left  no  intima- 
tions in  any  of  his  writings  that  Judith  was  so  conspic- 
uously honoured,  but  uniformly  treats  the  w^iole  Apocrypha 
as  disputed  and  uninspired  compositions.  In  the  twelfth 
chapter  of  the  sixth  book  of  his  Ecclesiastical  History  he 
speaks  of  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  and  of  Jesus  the  son 
of  Sirach  as  works  which  were  not  admitted  into  the  Canou.^ 
In  the  second  book  of  his  Chronicles,^  according  to  the  ver- 
sion of  Jerome,  he  distinguishes  betwixt  the  Maccabees  and 
the  inspired  records  of  the  Jews,  and  places  the  former  in 
the  same  category  with  the  writings  of  Josephus  and  Julius 
Africauus,  and  expressly  states  that  they  were  not  received 
among  Sacred  Scriptures.  "  From  the  time  of  Zerubbabel," 
he  states  in  the  eighth  book  of  the  Demonstratio  Evau- 
gelica,^  "to  the  time  of  the  Saviour,  no  Divine  book  was 
published."  And  Jerome  informs  us  that  he  pronounced 
the  additions  to  Daniel  to  be  totally  destitute  of  Divine 
authority.* 

Athanasius,  another  prominent  member  of  the  Council 
of  Nice,  expressly  rejects  the  Apocrypha  from  any  claim  to 

^  KexpVTai  6'  h  avToic  xat  raig  otto  tuv  avriAeyo/iivuvyQa^cov  uai^Tvpiatg. 
T^f  TS  'AeyonkvTjg  iMkojxuvTOQ  (TOipiag,  Kol  rfJQ  Irjcsbv  rbv  '^tgax,  Kal  ri/g  Tzgbg 
''E^galovg  eTn(jTo?.7}c,  TTJg  re  BaQvd^a  ical  KXr/jLievrog  Kal  Iov6a. — Eusebii  Pam- 
phili  Historic^  Eccles.,  lib.  vi.,  cap.  13. 

'  Hue  usque  Divinse  Scriptnrse  Hebra;orum  Annales  temporum  con- 
tinent. Ea  vero  quse  posthsec  apud  eos  gesta  sunt,  exhibeo  de  Libro  Mac- 
cabseorum,  et  Josephi,  et  Africani  scriptis. — Euseb.,  Chron.,  lib.  ii.,  juxla 
versionem  S.  Hieron. 

3  i2v  ov  Kaff  ijiilv  Swardv  k^aKQi^al^ecdai  to,  yevr;,  tu  iitjSe  (p^psadat  deiav 
/3//?Aov  E^  EKiivov  Kal  fiEXQi-  ™''  '^^^  'ZuTiigog  jpdvwv. — Euseb.,  Demon.  Erang., 
lib.  viii. 

*  Et  miror  quosdam  ....  quuin  et  Origines  et  Eusebius  et  AiioUina- 
rius  aliique  Ecclesiastici  viri  et  Doctores  Grscise  has  visiones  ut  dixi  non 
Iiaberi  apud  Hebrteos  fateantur,  nee  se  debere  respondere  Porpliyrio  pro 
his  quffi  nullam  Scripturie  sacra;  auctoritatem  pra?beant.— 5.  Hicr.  Pi<eJ. 
Com,  in  Daniel 


Let.  XVir.]       TESTIMONIES   FROM    FOURTH   CENTURY.      685 

inspiration.  lie  speaks  of  Ecck'siastic-us,  AVisdoiu,  Tobit, 
the  additions  to  Estlior  and  Judith,  as  valuable  books  for 
l)eginners  and  those  who  were  recently  converted  to  Chris- 
tianity, but  as  forniiui^:  »o  part  of  the  Canon  of  Serij)ture.  It 
was  the  peculiar  prerogative  of  the  twenty-two  books  which 
the  Jews  admitted  and  which  Protestants  receive,  according 
to  him,  to  be  the  fountains  of  salvation,  the  infallible  source 
of  religious  truth.^ 

Betwixt  the  Synod  of  Nice  and  Jerome  we  have  a  suc- 
cession of  distinguished  writers — Epiphanius,  Hilary,  Basil, 
Gregory  Xazianzen  and  Amphilochius,  together  with  the 
Council  of  Laodicea — all,  as  we  shall  subsequently  see,  con- 
curring not  in  the  rejection  of  Judith  only,  but  of  the  whole 
Apocrypha,  from  any  pretensions  to  canonical  authority. 
None  seem  to  have  known  or  ever  to  have  heard  that  any 
such  event  took  place  at  Nice  as  Jerome  says  had  been 
somewhere  read  to  have  happened.  Is  it  credible  that  if 
Nice  had  canonized  Judith,  all  of  these  writers,  some  of 
Avhom  were  members  of  the  body,  should  have  been  pro- 
foundly ignorant  of  the  fact  ?  How  comes  it  that  not  one 
of  them  has  alluded  to  it,  but  that  all  have  spoken  as  if  no 
such  event  had  ever  taken  place  ?  I  cannot  better  express 
this  argument  than  in  the  words  of  a  distinguished  Papist, 
Lindanus,    the   bishop    of   Rurmoude : ^    "If   the    Nicene 

'  Athanasius  as  above. 

^  Si  enira  Nicena  Synodus  librum  Judith  cum  aliis  in  Canonem  rede- 
gerat,  cur  annis  80  post  eum  non  accenset  Laodicena?  Cur  Nazianzenus 
ejus  non  meminit?  sed  legitur  computasse  (ait  Hieronymus)  qui  mihi 
dubitantis  suspicionem  subindicare  videtur.  Nisi  fortasse  quis  opinetur 
hunc  de  libris  canonicis  Nicenum  canonem  unil  cum  plurimis  aliis,  mini- 
mum (uti  equidem  arbitror)  47,  teste  Divo  .Julio  prinio  Komano,  hwretico- 
rum  fraude  fuisse  accisum,  atque  sublcctum  Ecclesise.  Cui  ne  suflrage- 
mur,  cogit  pia  de  sanctissimis  patribus  in  concilio  Laodiccno  congregatis 
existiraatio.  Non  illos  ea  jetate,  qua  canonum  scientia  imprimis  ornabat 
Episcopos,  tam  fuisse  sui  et  nominis  et  officii  oblitos,  ut  illos  aut  nescie- 
rint,  aut  desideratos  non  requisierint.  Ad  hsec  si  vere  legitur  quod  ait 
Hieronymus  logi,  '^  Libnim  Judith  concilium  Sicivnnm  inter  canonicns  com- 
pntasse:"  quid  sibi  vult  quod  idem  prfefatione  in  libris  Salomonis  scribit: 
'■'■  Ecclesiam  libroH  Judith,  Tobice,  Macc(iheor\nn  legere  quidem,  sed  inter  cnnon- 
icas  scriptui-as  non  recipere?"     Hue  usque  Lindanus  dubitantis  instar,  sub- 


686    AEGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.     [Let.  XVII 

Council  held  the  book  of  Judith  and  the  other  books  of  that 
rank  to  be  canonical,  why  did  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  eighty 
years  afterwards,  omit  it?  And  why  did  Xazianzen  make 
no  mention  of  it  ?  St.  Hierorae  seems  to  me  to  speak  as  one 
that  doubted  of  it,  unless  a  man  might  think  that  this  and 
many  more  decrees  beside,  which  the  Council  of  Nice  made, 
were  afterward  pared  away  from  it  by  fraudulent  heretics ; 
whereunto  I  cannot  give  my  consent  for  the  religious  honour 
that  I  bear  to  the  Fathers  of  Laodicea,  who  in  that  age,  when 
bishops  knew  the  canons  of  the  Church  best,  and  when  it 
was  their  great  commendation  to  be  skilful  in  them,  could 
not  be  so  far  negligent  both  of  their  credit  and  their  duty 
as  neither  to  know  them  if  they  were  extant  nor  to  seek 
after  them  if  they  were  lost.  Besides,  if  that  were  true 
which  St.  Hierome  says  was  read  of  the  book  of  Judith, 
that  the  Xicene  Fathers  took  it  into  the  Canon,  how  shall  we 
construe  that  Avhich  he  writes  in  his  preface  before  the  books 
of  Solomon,  '  that  though  the  Church  indeed  reads  the  his- 
tory of  Judith  and  Tobit,  etc.,  yet  it  doth  not  receive  them 
into  the  number  of  canonical  Scripture?'  But  that  the 
Nicene  Council  determined  nothing  in  this  matter  I  am 
the  rather  induced  to  believe,  for  the  Sixth  General  Council 
at  Constantinople  approved  the  Canon  of  Laodicea,  which 
it  would  never  have  done  if  the  Fathers  that  met  there  had 
either  rejected  or  mutilated  the  Canon  of  Xice." 

The  reasoning  of  the  bishop,  coupled  with  the  consider- 
ations which  have  already  been  adduced,  seems  to  be  con- 
clusive. The  first  General  Synod  of  the  Christian  Church, 
whatever  other  follies  it  was  permitted  to  perpetrate,  was 
kept  in  the  merciful  providence  of  God  from  corrupt- 
ing those  records  of  eternal  truth  from  which  its  sublime 

jungit  definientis  more:  Yeriim  nihil  hac  de  re  in  concilio  Niceno  fui!»se 
definitum,  ut  existimem  invitat  quod  hunc  Laodicenum  de  scripturis 
canonicis  canonem,  una  cum  reliquis,  synodus  Constantinopolitana  sexta 
in  Trullo  approbarit;  quod  minime  videtur  fuisse  factura,  si  designatum 
a  318  ill  is  patribus  NicenLs  doctissimis  juxta  ac  sanctissimis,  Laodiceni 
aut  non  recipissent  aut  decurtasisont  Saerarum  Scripturaruni  Canonem.— 
liainiiklw,  De  Libris  Apocryphis,  Prccledio  xv.,  vol.  i.,  p.  132. 


Let.  XVII.]       TESTniOMES    FRO.M    FOURTH    CEXTURY.      687 

and  incMuorable  creed  may  be  nioi^t  triumphantly  deduced. 
A  pure  faith  ha.s  nothing  to  apprehend  from  unachdterated 
Scriptures. 

2.  It  is  unneeessarv  to  notice  what  you  have  said  of  tlie 
Provincial  Synod  at  Alexandria,  held  in  the  year  339,  or 
of  the  General  Council  at  Constantinople,  convened  in  381. 
The  principles  of  criticism,  which  have  been  repeatedly 
developed  in  the  course  of  this  discussion,  furnish  an  abun- 
dant explanation  of  the  real  value  of  the  quotations  on 
which  you  have  relied.  In  regard  to  Gregory  Xazianzen, 
in  particular,  through  whom  you  have  represented  the 
Council  of  Constantinople  as  endorsing  the  books  of  Eccle- 
siasticus  and  Wisdom,  I  shall  have  occasion  hereafter  to 
show  that  you  have  been  grossly  seduced  into  error.  His 
testimony  is  clear  and  explicit  for  the  Jewish  Canon,  and 
if  he  has  quoted  the  Apocrypha  as  Scripture  or  Divine 
Scripture,  as  I  am  willing  to  admit  that  he  has  done,  this 
fact  only  strengthens  the  position  that  such  expressions 
were  generic  terms,  comprehending  the  entire  department 
of  religious  literature,  whether  inspired  or  not. 

3.  I  come  now  to  the  Councils  of  Hippo  and  Carthage, 
which,  as  their  testimony  on  this  subject  is  one,  I  shall  treat 
as  one ;  and  as  my  object  is  not  to  puzzle  but  convince,  I 
shall  take  no  advantage  of  the  difficulties  which  press  the 
Roman  doctors  in  determining  which  of  the  Carthaginian 
Councils  it  was  that  enacted  the  famous  decree  touching 
the  canonical  books  of  Scripture.  That  decree  is  usually 
printed  in  the  collections  as  the  forty-seventh  Canon  of  the 
third  Council  of  Carthage,  held  in  the  year  397,  and,  so  far 
as  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  are  concerned,  is  in 
these  words :  "  ^loreover,  it  is  ordained  that  nothing  beside 
the  canonical  Scriptures  be  read  in  the  Church  under  the 
name  of  Dkhie  Scripture,  and  the  canonical  Scriptures  are 
these  :  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuteronomy, 
eloshua  the  son  of  Xun,  Judges,  Ruth,  Four  Books  of  the 
Kingdoms,  Two  Books  of  Chronicles,  Job,  David's  Psalter, 
Five  Books  of  Solomon,  the  Books  of  tlie  Twelve  Prophets 


688    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.    [Let.  XVII. 

Isaiah,   Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Daniel,  Tobit,   Judith,  Esther, 
Two  Books  of  Esdi-as,  Two  Books  of  the  Maecabees." 

Now  the  question  is,  What  are  we  to  understand  by  the 
phrase  canonical  Scr'qitures  as  used  in  this  decree ?  If  it  is 
synonymous  with  inspired  Scriptures,  then  indeed  you  have 
produced  a  witness  that  the  Apocrypha  are  entitled  to  Divine 
authority.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  means  something  else, 
something  quite  distinct  from  inspired  Scripture,  then  your 
cause,  condemned  by  the  voice  of  three  centuries,  is  left 
without  even  the  African  protection  which  you  had  vainly 
hoped  to  tind  in  the  close  of  the  fourth.  Nay,  if  it  could 
be  proved  that  the  Council  of  Carthage  intended  in  this 
Canon  to  enumerate  the  books  which  were  held  to  be 
inspired,  the  only  protection  which  Rome  could  receive 
from  it  is  the  "  protection  which  vultures  give  to  lambs." 
It  is  as  much  the  interest  of  Papists  as  of  Protestants  to 
find  a  meaning  which,  without  doing  violence  to  the  terms 
that  are  employed,  shall  be  consistent  with  itself  and  with 
the  known  opinions  of  the  age,  and  at  the  same  time  exone- 
rate the  Fathers  from  the  charge  of  ignorance,  folly  and 
wickedness,  to  which,  if  it  were  their  purpose  to  draw  up  a 
list  of  the  writings  that  had  been  given  by  inspiration  of 
God,  they  are  in  some  degree  exposed.  It  cannot  be 
denied  that  they  were  foolish,  ignorant  and  wicked  if  they 
pronounced  any  book  to  be  inspired  without  sufficient  evi- 
dence, and  it  is  equally  indisputable  that  no  such  evidence 
could  have  been  possessed  in  behalf  of  any  work  which 
the  Church,  in  every  age  before  and  after  this  provincial 
synod,  has  concurred  in  rejecting  as  apocryphal.  And 
yet  a  book  which  in  the  Papal  editions  of  the  Bible 
is  placed  by  authority  extra  seriem  canon icorum  Ubrorum, 
which  has  evidently  no  claims  to  inspiration,  and  which  the 
Christian  world,  according  to  the  showing  of  Romanists 
themselves,  has  never  received  as  the  Word  of  God,  is 
inserted  by  Carthage  in  its  list  of  canonical  books.  Who 
can  believe,  who  can  even  conceive,  that  it  was  the  inten- 
tion of  the  Fathers  to  outrage  the  sentiments  of  the  rest 


Let.  XVII.]     TESTIMONIES   FROM    FOURTH    CENTURY.        689 

of  Cliristcndoin,  and  to  incur  the  awful  nialodiction  of  those 
Mho  add  to  the  words  of  Divine  Kevehition?  To  have 
perpetrated  a  deed  of  this  sort,  amid  the  liglit  with  which 
they  were  surrounded — a  h'ght  so  bright  that  it  has  pene- 
trated even  to  the  darkened  chambers  of  the  Papacy — would 
have  manifested  a  degree  of  impiety  and  blasphemy  Avhich 
Mc  cannot  attribute  to  a  body  of  which  Augustine  was  a 
member.  You,  however,  in  the  interpretation  which  you 
liave  given  of  their  forty-seventh  canon,  have  charged  it 
upon  them.  It  is  susceptible  of  the  clearest  proof  that  the 
two  books  of  Esdras  which  they  have  mentioned  in  their 
list  include  the  third.  What  in  the  Latin  Bellarmine  him- 
self admits^  is  denominated  the  third  book  of  Esdras,  is  in 
the  Greek  copies  of  the  Bible  entitled  the  first.  What  is 
in  the  Latin  tliQ  first  and  second  constitute  in  Greek  but  one 
volume,  and  are  styled  the  second  book  of  Esdras.  So  that, 
according  to  the  Greek  numeration,  the  first  and  second 
books  of  Esdras  comprehend  the  Apocryphal  third.  Bel- 
larmine has  again  informed  us^  that  at  the  time  when  the 
Council  of  Carthage  was  convened,  the  universal  Church 
used  that  translation  of  the  Bible  which  Jerome  was  accus- 
tomed to,  called  the  Vulgate,  and  which  was  made  from 
copies  of  the  Septuagint,  including  the  additions  of  the 
Hellenistic  Jews.  Hence,  the  Bibles  of  the  Fathers  at  Car- 
thage, under  the  name  of  two  books  of  Esdras,  embraced 
not  only  Nehemiah  and  Ezra,  but  that  very  third  book  of 

^  Nee  minor  est  difBciiltas  de  lib.  iii.  Esdne,  nam  in  Graecis  codicibus  ipse 
est,  qui  dicitur  primus  Esdroe  ;  et  qui  apud  nos  dicuntur  primus  et  sec.undus, 
in  Graeco  dicuntur  sectindm  Esdrce.  Quocirca  versiraile  est,  antiqua  con- 
cilia et  patres,  cilm  ponunt  in  canone  duos  libros  Esdra?,  intelligere  nomine 
duorum  librorura  omnes  tres.  Sequebantur  enim  versionem  septuaginta 
interpretum,  apud  quoa  tre.s  nostri  duo  libri  Esdrce  nominantur. — Bellar., 
De  Verbo  Dei,  lib.  i.,  cap.  xx. 

*  Utebatur  autera  eo  tempore  universa  Ecclesia  libris  .sacrisjuxta  cam 
editionera,  quam  S.  Hieronymus  prrpfatione  in  librum  p]stlier,  et  sa?pe 
alibi,  vulyatmn  aiipellare  solet,  quae,  ut  ip.se  ait,  Grsecorum  lingua  et  literi.s 
continetur. — Bellar.,  De  Verbo  Dei,  lib.  i.,  cap.  vii. 
Vol.  III.— 44 


690    ARGUMENTS   FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVII. 

Esclras  which  Rome  declares  to  be  Apocryphal.^  Xow, 
my  argument  is  briefly  this:  if  the  Carthaginian  Fathers 
intended  to  settle  the  Canon  of  inspiration,  they  Avere  guilty 
of  great  folly  and  wickedness ;  but  the  character  of  the  men, 

1  As  the  following  extract  so  ably  refutes  Bellarmine's  evasions,  the 
reader,  I  hope,  will  excuse  its  length  : 

Potest  autem  id  videri  falsum,  Augustinum  scilicet  et  Carthaginiense 
concilium  adnumerasse  tertium  Esdrte  canonicis,  cum  duos  tantum  ejus 
libros  in  canone  consignando  nominent,  sed  si  penitus  introspicere  volue- 
ritis,  sub  duorum  nomine  tertium  quoque  comprehend i  intelligetis.  Quod 
ut  vobis  planum  fiat,  principio  notandum  secus  collocari  libros  Esdrae 
in  Grteca  editione  quam  in  Latina.  Qui  enim  Latinis  tertius,  is  est  Grae- 
cis  primus ;  qui  Latinis  primus  et  secundus,  ii  Grsecis  in  unum  volumen 
compinguntur,  cui  nomen  Secundus  Esdrce.  Quod  vero  primum  et  secun- 
dum Esdrse  unum  Graeci  numerent,  ut  Hieronymus  docet,  inde  fieri  id 
potuit,  quia  Hebrjei  sic  numerant.  Quod  tertium  Esdrse  prsefigant,  inde 
videtur  effectum,  quia  ille  liber  historiam  paulo  altlus  repetit.  Fuisse 
autem  primum  Grsecis,  qui  est  Latinis  tertius,  manifestum  est,  quod  si  teste 
opus  sit,  fidem  faciat  Athanasius,  qui  in  enumeratione  librorum  duos 
Esdrse  nominat,  priorem  cujus  initium  est,  Et  obtulit  Josias  Pascha,  etc.,  et 
posteriorem,  cujus  initium  esse  dicit,  Tn  annoprimo  Cyri,  Regis  Persarum,  etc., 
quEe  duo  cum  sint  initia  tertii  et  primi  libri,  clarissimum  inde  est,  ter- 
tium ab  eo  ut  primum  numeratum,  secundum  et  primum  ut  secundum. 
Nam  quod  in  Latinis  Athanasii  exemplaribus  in  margine  adscripsit  nes- 
cio  quis  {Atqui  hoc  principium  est  capitis  trigesimiquinti  2,  Paralipomenon) 
per  imperitiam  factum  est.  Non  enim  animadvertit  ille  quisquis  fuit, 
eadem  verba  exordiri  tertium  Esdrse,  sed  animadvertere  id  debuerat,  atqne 
errorem  suum  corrigere  ex  eodem  capite,  ubi  Athanasius  agens  de  prime 
Esdrse,  enumerat  ea  prope  omnia,  quse  sunt  in  tertio  Esdrse ;  adscripsit 
autem  ille  idem  (ut  videtur)  hsec  haberi  capite  tertio  et  quarto  libri 
secundi. 

Id  eo  modo  observatum  est  in  Grsecis  Bibliorum  editionibus ;  nominatim 
in  ea  quse  Venetiis  ex  Aldi  officina  exivit,  ubi  cum  duo  tantum,  habeantur 
libri  Esdrse,  primus  exorditur,  quomodo  noster  tertius,  secundus  iisdem 
plane  verbis,  quibus  Latina  editio  primum  Esdrse  inchoat.  Ita  manifes- 
tum est  et  antiquitus  Athanasii  tempore,  et  ab  ejus  seculo  in  Grains  edi- 
tionibus Veteris  Testament!  duobus  Esdrse  libris  tertium  comprehendi. 
In  quo  obiter  notandum,  doctissimos  viros  Franciscum  Vatablum,  Fran- 
ciscum  Junium,  et  Franciscum  Lucam,  eo  parum  animadverso,  existima- 
visse  tertium  Esdrse  Grsece  non  extare.  Vatablus  quidem  tertium  Esdrse 
Grsece  nee  sibi  contigisse  dicit  videre,  nee  cuiquam  quod  sciat  alten. 
Quomodo  etiam  Junius  Hezrcv  libros  duos,  neque  Hebraice,  neque  Gr(rc?  vidi 
(inquit  ille)  aut  fuisse  visas  memini  legere.  Franciscus  Lucas,  paulo  asse- 
verantiiis  tertium  Esdrce  mdlo  alio  sermone  extare  ait  pra;terqHam  Latino. 
In  quam  ille  opinionem  inductus  crat  co,  quod  neque  in  Complutensibus 


Let.  XVII.]     TE.STIMONIES    FROM    FOURTH    CENTURY.         G91 

partifularly  of  Augu.stiuo,  sliow.s  that  they  were  not  liable  to 
such  a  charge ;  tlierefore,  they  did  not  intend  to  determine 
the  Canon  of"  inspired  books. 

This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  decree 
exeraplaribus,  ncque  in  Bibliis  regiis  habeatur  tertii  Esdrse  Gra>ce ;  nee  in 
Germanic-is (iiiitloni  Bibliis  .'^cqnitur  Nehemiam,  sed  in  earn  partem  rejicitur, 
ubi  Apooryphi  poniintiir.  Hoc  tandem  Lucas  vidit,  et  agnovit,  ct  confes- 
SU.S  est  .se  deceptum,  etc.,  sed  quod  ad  rem  prsesentem  facit,  afiirmat  ibi 
Lucas,  tertium  Esdrse  Latinorum,  esse  primum  Grcecis.  Atque  hoc  est, 
quod  primum  observatum  volui.  Proximo  loco  animadvertere  debetis 
Augustinum  et  patres  Carthaginienses  in  Canone  consignando,  et  alias 
in  disputationibus  suis  translatione  Latina  e  Gra?ca  70  editione  ver.sa,  uti 
consuovisse.  Quod  ip.se  planum  facit  ubi  citato  illo  loco,  Etformavit  Lteus 
hominem  pulverem  dc  terra:  subjungit,  Sicut  Grccci  codices  habenl,  itnde  in 
Lalinam  liiujuam  scripiura  ipsa  conversa  est.  Manifestius  autem  id  dicit, 
ubi  rem  ex  professo  dispntat.  Nam  cumfuerint  (inquit  Augustinus)  et  alii 
interprefes,  etc.,  hanc  tamen,  quce  septuaginta  est,  tanquam  sola  esset,  sic  recipit 
Ecclesia,  eaque  utuntur  Grceci  populi  Christiani,  quorum  plerique  ut rum  alia 
sit  aliqua  ignorant.  Ex  hac  70  interpretatione  etiam  in  Latinam  linguam 
interpi-etatum  est,  quod  Ecclesia  Latince  tenent,  quamvis  non  defuerit  temporibus 
nostris  pres^byter  Hieronymus  homo  doctissimus,  et  omnium  trium  linguarum 
peritus,  qui  non  ex  Grceco,  sed  ex  Hebrceo  in  Latinvm  eloquium  easdem  scrip- 
turas  convertit,  et  quae  sequuntur.  En  ut  disertis  verbis  Augustinus  non 
solum  se  usum  ilia  Septuaginta  interpretum  versione  significat,  sed  et  earn 
perinde  quasi  sola  esset,  ab  Ecclesia  receptam,  et  Ecclesiam  Latinam,  quod 
tenet  id  ex  ilia  interpretatione  tenere,  adeo  ut  quamvis,  Augustini  tempo- 
ribus Hieronymus  summa  fide  ex  Hebraicis  fontibus  converteret,  Ecclesia 
tamen  prteferret  earn  editionem,  quw  ex  Grseca  70  Latina  facta  est.  Id 
qtiod  et  loco  .superiore  docuit  Augustinus,  et  prsecipue  in  Epistolis,  ubi  ad 
Ilieronymum  sic  scribit,  iififo  sanii  te  mallem  Grcecas  potius  canonicas  nobis 
interpretari  scripturas,  quce  70  interpretum  authoritate  perhibentur.  Per- 
durum  erit  enim,  si  tua  interpretatio  per  multas  Ecclesias  Jrequentihs  ceperit 
lectitari,  quod  d  Gracis  Ecclesiis  Latince  Ecclesioe  dissonabunt,  etc.,  et  alibi 
petit  il  Hieronymo,  ut  interpretationem  suam  Bibliorum  e  70  mittat. 
Idea  autem  (inquit)  desidero  interpretationem  tuam  de70,  ut  et  tanta  Latino- 
rum,  qui  qualescunque  hoc  ausi  sunt,  quantum  possitmus  imperitia  careamus: 
et  hi  qui  me  invidere  putant  utilibus  laboribits  tui.'>,  eandern  aliquando  si  fieri 
potest,  inlelligant,  propterea  me  nolle  tuam  ex  Hebrceo  interpretationem  in 
Ecclesiis  legi,  ne  contra  Septuaginta  auctoritalem,  tamquam  novum  aliquid 
proferentes,  magno  scandalo  perturbemus  plebes  Christi,  quarum  awes  el  corda 
illam  interpretationem  audire  consueverunt,  qua  ab  upostolis  approbata  est. 
Denique  in  libris  de  Doctrina  Christiana,  vult  ille  Latinos  codices  veteri.s 
testamenti,  si  necesse  fuerit,  Gnecorum  auctoritate  emendandos,  et  eornm 
potissimum,  qui  cum  70  cssent,  ore  uno  interpretati  esse  perhibentur,  etc., 
locus  coneulatur.     Neque  vero  hsec  Augustinus  solum  luculente  testatur, 


692   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVII 

itself  was  conditional ;  the  Church  beyond  the  sea,  as  we 
gather  from  an  ancient  note,  was  to  be  consulted  for  its  con- 
firmation. The  Council  of  Carthage,  then,  received  the 
books  mentioned  in  its  list  as  canonical,  provided  the  trans- 
sed  et  reliqui  scriptores,  qui  in  eum  commentarios  scripserunt,  vel  de  eo 
loquuti  sunt.  In  quibus  Ludovicus  Vives  in  prsefatione  comment,  ait 
A  ugustinum  versione/ni  70  interpreium  ubiqne  adducere.  Et  in  ipsis  commen- 
tariis  ostendit  (inquit)  olim.  Ecclesias  Latinos  lisas  interpretatione  Latitia  ex 
70  versa,  non  hac  Hierov.ymi  ut  mirer  esse  qui  tantum  nefas  exisiiment  tram- 
lationes  attingi,  modu  sohrih  ac  prvdenter  fiat. 

vSixtus  Senensis  duas  fuisse  docet  in  Ecclesia  Latina  Latinas  editiones 
V.  T.  novam  scilicet  ac  veterem.  Vetus  quidem  (inquit  ille)  vulgata  et 
communis  nomen  accepit,  tum  quia  nullum  cerium  haberet  auetorem,  tUm  quia 
non  de  Hebrceo  fonte,  sed  de  koivt/,  vel  de  Septuaginta  interpretatione  sumptu 
esset  {quern  admodurn  August.  18,  De  Civit.  Dei,  c.  43,  et  Hieronymus  in 
prcefatione  Evangeliorum  testantur),  cujus  lectione  usa  est  Ecclesia  longe  ante 
tempora  Hieronymi,  ac  etiam  mulfo  post,  usque  ad  tempora  Gregorii  Papce. 
Nova  vera  a  Hieronymo  non  de  Grceca,  sed  de  Hebraica  veritate  in  Latinum 
eloquium  versa  est :  qua  Ecclesia  usque  ab  ipsis  Gregorii  temporibus,  una.  cum 
veteri  editione  usa  est.  Utriusque  enim  Gregorius  in  pro'J'alione  Moralium 
meminit,  inquiens :  Novam  translationem  deferro,  sed  cum  probationis  causa 
me  exigit,  nunc  veterem,  nunc  novam  pro  testimonio  assumo:  ut  quia  sedes 
Apost.  cui  authore  Deo  prcesideo  utraque  utitur,  mei  quoque  labor  studii  ex 
utroque  fuJdatur.  Hsec  apud  Sixtum,  undfe  liquet  longe  ante  tempora 
Hieronymi,  ad  usque  Gregorium  (quasi  ad  600  annos),  in  usu  fuisse  trans- 
lationem Latinam  e  Graeca  70.  Adeoque  recte  coUigi  Augustinum  et 
Carthaginiensis  concilii  patres  editionem  illam  Grsecam  70  sequutos  esse. 
Quid  quod  Bellarminus  ipse  hoc  agnoscit,  veteres  sequutos  esse  vei"sionem 
Septuaginta?  Apud  quos  (inquit)  qui  nobis  Esdrce  tertius  est, fuit primus, 
siccine  f  Quomodo  ergo  te  expedies  e  laqueo  rationis  nostrre  ?  Conatur 
ille  quidem  expedire  se,  sed  hseret  ut  mus  in  pisa.  Majorem  revera  (ait) 
esse  diffictdtatem  de  tertio,  Esdrce  quam  de  quarto.  Sed  respondet,  Etsi  duo 
libri  Grcecorum  sint  nostris  tertius,  non  tamen  sequi patres  antiquos  cum  duos 
Esdrce  in  canone  ponant,  nostras  tres  intellexisse.  Quid  ita?  Quatuor 
nimirum  rationes  adhibet  e  quibus  plerseque  non  attingunt  nostram  sen- 
tent  iam,  certe  nullse  labefactant. 

Prima  ratio  hsec  est:  Quia  Melito,  Epiphanius,  llilarius,  Hieronymus, 
Buffinus,  aperte  sequuti  sunt  Hebrceos,  qui  terfium  Esdrce  7ion  agnoscunt. 
Quid  tum  ?  Ergone  Augustinus  cum  duos  Esdra;  acoenseat,  non  intellexit 
nostros  tres?  Quia  scilicet,  Melito,  Epiphanius,  Hilarius,  Hieronymus, 
Euffinus,  aperte  sequuti  sunt  Hebraeos,  ergo  Augustinus  non  est  sequutus 
editionem  Graecam  Septuaginta?  perinde  ratiocinatur  ac  siquis  diceret, 
Socrates,  Plato,  veteres  Academici  vocarunt  Deum  Ideam  boni,  etc.,  ergo  ae 
Aristoteles  et  Perpateticorum  schola  sic  voeavit.  Si  nondum  appareat  hujus 
rationis  infirmitas  at  facillime  apparebit  in  ratione  simili  quam  adjun- 


Let.  XVII.]       TESTIMOXIES    FROM    FOUIITII    CENTrWV.       693 

marine  churches  Avcmhl  consent.  Surely  it  coukl  not  mean 
that  these  books  are  inspired,  provided  tlie  transmarine 
churches  will  agree  that  they  are  so.  The  evidence  of  their 
inspiration  was  either  complete  to  the  council,  or  it  was  not. 
If  it  was  complete,  they  were  bound  as  faithful  ministers 
of  Christ  to  say  unconditionally  and  absolutely  that  these 

gam :  Melito,  Epiplianlus,  Ililarius,  Hieronynius  et  Kuffinus  rejecerunt 
h  canone  sacrarum  Scripturariim  libros  Sapiential,  Eccle.siastifi,  Tobise, 
Judith,  etc.,  ergo  et  Augustinus  ho.s  rejecit,  et  concilium  Carthaginiense; 
lia^c  nisi  ratio  firma  sit,  videtis  quara  infirma  sit  altera. 

Secunda  Bellarmini  ratio  ea  est  d.  precibus  publicis  et  usii,  Eeclesiastici 
officii.  Quia  jam  diu  nihil  legitur  ex  illo  libro  in  officio  Ecdedastico.  Quid 
inde?  An  ergo  Augustinus  cum  duos  Esdra;  libros  in  Caiione  numeraret, 
non  intellexit  nostros  tres  ?  Aut  Augustini  tenii)ore  et  a  patribus  Cartlia- 
giniensibus  non  habebatur  tertius  Esdrae  in  canonicis?  Perinde  hoc  est  ac 
si  quis  ita  ratiocinetur  :  Exulat  jam  diu  papains  ex  Anglia,  ergo  Henrici  VI. 
tempore  exulavit.  Imo  absurdior  ilia  ratio  quam  hsec,  quo  propriils  abfuit 
ab  aetate  nostra  Henrici  VI.  Eegnum,  quam  Augustini  tempora ;  cum  ille 
ab  hinc  non  ultra  100  annos  floruerit,  ab  Augustino  ultra  1000  effluxerint, 
quo  temporis  decursu  niulta  mutari  potcrant.  Bellarminus  enim  ipse 
fatetur,  Augustini  tempore  monachos  tondori  solitos  fuisse,  suo  radi. 
Potuit  taraen  simili  ratione  uti :  Jamdiu  in  usu  i'uit,  ut  raderentur  monachi, 
ergo  August,  tempore  non  solebant  tonderi. 

Sed  fortasse  tertia  ratio  subtilior,  qute  ab  auctoritate  Gehisii  ducitur 
Is  namque  unum  tantum  Esdra;  libriim  in  canone  ponil,  id  est  (inquit  lieliar.) 
nostros  duos.  Optime.  Conceditur  enim,  postea  rem  penitus  intros])iciemus, 
et  videbimus  utrum  unum  ille  tantum  numeret.  Interim  concedant  Gela- 
sium,  qui  vixit  centum  annos  post  Aug.  et  Carthag.  Cone,  unum  tantum 
EsdriB  lib.  in  canone  posuisse.  Quid  vero  hoc  ad  August,  et  Carthag. 
patres?  An  deinde  illi  non  numerarunt  duos?  an  duorum  nomine  nos- 
tros tres  non  significarunt?  Quidni  ergo  sic  ratiocinent:  M.  Crossnx  par- 
lib,  oplimatum  favit,  ergo  C.  Marias  non  f nit  popularisf  Hsec  argumenta  >i 
in  nostris  scholis  supponerentur,  credo  riderentur  il  pueris.  Verum  ciun 
sufieruntur  A  Jesuitis,  quodam  ni  fallor  «(WT/'twi' artificio  insohil)ili;i  ]i:i!k- 
buntur. 

Verum  enim  vero  fortassis  artilicio  Rhetorum  firmissiinam  ratiMm-ni 
pdstreino  loco  reservavit.  Ea  crit  palmaria.  jSuuupie  Jlieroin/nins  (inciuit 
Bellarminus)  aperti  docet,  tertium  Esdra  non  modo  non  cipud  Ilcbra'os  haberi, 
ned  neque  apud  Septuaginla.  An  id  aperte  docet  Hier.  ?  Eo  certe  delapsura 
esse  Bellarminura  miror.  Consulite  Ilieron.  ( Videbitis  eum  non  modo  non 
aperte  docere,  quid  ei  affingit  Bellar.  sed  nee  omnino;  imo  contrarium  sta- 
tuere,  quid  consensu  antiquorum,  qui  testimoniis,  e  tertio  Esdne  perssepe 
usi,  postea  mihi  pluribus  erit  confirmandum.) — Eainoldu«,  Dr  Libris 
Apoeryphis,  Prcdectio  xxviii.,  vol.  i.,  pp.  2'.Vi-'l\'.\. 


694   ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.   [Let.  XVII. 

books  belong  to  the  rule  of  faith.  Under  such  circum- 
stances to  have  enacted  a  conditional  decree  would  have 
been  treason  against  truth  and  impiety  to  God.  Why  con- 
sult the  Church  beyond  the  sea  in  regard  to  a  matter  which 
was  unquestioned  and  notorious  ?  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  evidence  was  not  complete  or  satisfactory  in  regard  to 
the  inspiration  of  the  books,  why  make  a  Canon  until 
doubts  were  settled  and  difficulties  resolved  ?  If  the  design 
of  appealing  to  the  transmarine  churches  was  to  obtain 
more  light,  why  did  the  Fathers  undertake  to  act  until  the 
light  had  been  supplied  ?  It  cannot  be  pretended  that  their 
intention  was  to  procure  the  confirmation  of  the  Holy  See. 
It  was  not  the  Pope  alone  nor  a  general  council  that  they 
proposed  to  consult ;  it  was  the  Church  beyond  the  sea — 
transmarina  ecdesia — the  Bishop  of  Rome,  or  "  the  other 
bishops  of  those  parts";  for  if  the  end  sought  had  been  the 
settlement  of  the  inspired  Canon,  and  every  bishop  and  doc- 
tor connected  with  this  Church,  with  Boniface  himself  at  their 
head,  had  been  assembled  in  council,  and  had  given  their 
decision,  their  voice  would  have  been  only  the  voice  of  a 
provincial  synod,  and  therefore  not  entitled  to  be  received, 
according  to  your  doctrine,  as  the  infallible  dictate  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  The  conduct  of  the  Carthaginian  Fathers  in 
passing  a  conditional  decree,  if  their  design  was  to  settle  the 
Canon  of  inspiration,  is  wholly  inexplicable.  They  vir- 
tually say.  We  have  satisfactory  evidence  that  these  books 
are  inspired,  and  yet  it  is  not  satisfactory.  Such  egregious 
trifling  cannot  be  imputed  to  them,  and  therefore  some 
interpretation  must  be  evidently  put  upon  the  Canon  which 
shall  justify  their  appeal  to  a  foreign  Church. 

No  better  way  is  left  us  of  arriving  at  a  just  conception 
of  this  matter  than  by  considering  the  testimony  of  Au- 
gustine, who  was  himself  a  member  of  the  council,  and 
who  may  be  presumed  to  have  known  the  real  intentions  of 
the  body.  His  opinions  may  be  taken  as  a  true  exponent 
of  the  opinions  of  the  African  Church.  This  illustrious 
advocate  of  the  doctrines  of  grace  has  given  us  a  list  of  the 


Let.  XVII.]       TESTIMONIES    FROM    FOURTH    CENTURY.       69o 

canonical  Scrijitures  which  coincides  precisely  with  the  cata- 
logue of  Carthage ; '  and  yet  there  is  abundant  proof  that 
several  of  the  books  which  are  mentioned  in  his  list  Au- 
gustine did  not  believe  to  be  inspired. 

In  the  twenty-fourth  chapter  of  the  .seventeenth  book  of 
his  City  of  God,  he  remarks/  "that  in  all  the  time  after 
their  return  from  Babylon,  till  the  days  of  our  Saviour,  the 
Jews  had  no  prophets  after  Malachi,  Haggai  and  Zeehariah, 
who  prophesied  at  that  time,  and  Ezra;  except  another 
Zachariah,  father  of  John,  and  his  wife  Elizabeth,  just  be- 
fore  the  birth  of  Christ;  and  after  his  birth,  old  Simeon, 

'  Totus  autem  Canon  Scripturarum,  in  quo  istam  considerationera  ver- 
sandaiu  dicimus,  his  libri.s  continetur.  Quinque  Moyseos,  id  est  Genesi, 
Exodo,  Levitico,  NumerLs,  Deuteronomio ;  ac  uno  libro  Jesu  Nave,  uno 
Judicum,  uno  libello  qui  appellatur  Entli,  qui  magis  ad  Rcgnorum  prin- 
cipia  videtur  pertinere ;  deinde  quatuor  Regnorum  et  duobus  Paralipo- 
menon,  non  consequentibus,  sed  qua.si  a  latei'e  adjunctis  simulque  per- 
gentibus.  Heec  e.st  historia,  quae  sibimet  annexa  tempora  continet,  atque 
ordinem  rerum :  sunt  alise  tamquam  ex  diverso  ordine,  quae  neque  huic 
ordini,  neque  inter  se  connectuntur,  sicut  est  Job,  et  Tobias,  et  Esther,  et 
Judith,  et  Machabaeoruni  libri  duo,  et  Esdrae  duo,  qui  magis  subsequi 
videntur  ordinatam  illam  historian!  usque  ad  Eegnorum  vel  Paralipo- 
nienon  terminatam.  Deinde  prophette,  in  quibus  David  unus  liber  Psal- 
morum,  et  Salomonis  trcs,  Proverbiorum,  Cantica  Canticorum,  et  Eccle- 
siastes.  Nam  illi  duo  libri,  unus  qui  Sapieiitia,  et  alius  qui  EcdesiaMicus 
inscribitnr,  de  quadani  similitudine  Salomonis  esse  dicuntur :  nam  Jesus 
filius  Sirach  eos  seripsLsse  constanti.ssime  perhibetur,  qui  tamen  quoniam 
in  authoritatem  recipi  meruerunt,  inter  propheticos  numerandi  sunt. 
Reliqui  sunt  eorum  libri,  qui  proprie  prophets  appcllati  sunt,  duodeeim 
prophetarura  libri  singuli,  qui  eonnexi  sibimet,  quoniam  numquam  se- 
juneti  siuit,  pro  uno  habentur:  quorum  proplictarum  nomina  sunt  haec. 
Usee,  Joel,  Amos,  Abdias,  Jonas,  Micheas,  Xahum,  llabacuc,  Soplionias, 
Agganis,  Zacharia.s,  Malachias :  deinde  quatuor  prophota>  sunt  majorum 
voluminum,  Isaias,  Jeremias,  Daniel,  Ezechiel.  His  (piadraginta  quatuor 
libris  Testamenti  veteris  terminatur  auctoritas. — S.  Auf/ustini  Episcopi  de 
Doclrina  Christiana,  lib.  ii.,  cap.  viii. 

^  Toto  autem  illo  tempore,  ex  quo  redierunt  de  Babylonia,  post  Mala- 
chiain,  Aggajum  et  Zacharianr,  qui  turn  prophetaverunt  et  Esdrani,  non 
habuernnt  prophetas  usque  ad  Salvatoris  adventum,  nisi  aliuni  Zaeliariam 
patrem  .Johannis,  que  Elisabet  ejus  uxoreni,  Christi  nativitatc  Jam  prox- 
ima;  et  eo  jam  nato,  Simeonem  senem,  et  Annam  viduam  jriin(iue  gran- 
dicvam  et  ipsum  Johannem  novissimum. — S.  Aiiguatini,  Episcopi  dc  Civitali 
Dei,  lib.  xvii.,  cap.  xxiv. 


696   ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVII 

and  Anna  a  widow  of  a  great  age ;  and  John  last  of  all." 
Again :^  "From  Samuel  the  Prophet  to  the  Babylonish 
Captivity,  and  then  to  their  return  from  it,  and  the  rebuild- 
ing of  the  temple  after  seventy  years,  according  to  the 
prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  is  the  whole  time  of  the  Prophets." 
To  ascertain  his  idea  of  a  prophet  and  of  a  prophetic  com- 
position, let  us  turn  to  the  thirty-eighth  chapter  of  the 
eighteenth  book  of  the  same  treatise.^  It  is  there  stated  as 
a  probable  explanation  of  the  fact  that  some  books  which 
were  written  by  prophets  were  excluded  from  the  Canon, 
"that  those  to  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  was  accustomed  to 
reveal  what  ought  to  be  received  as  authoritative  in  religion 
wrote  some  things  as  men  of  historic  investigation,  and 
others  as  Prophets  of  Divine  inspiration:  the  two  were 
kept  distinct,  that  the  former  might  be  attributed  to  the 
men  themselves,  the  latter  to  God,  who  spoke  through  the 
Prophets."  A  Prophet,  then,  is  a  person  "  to  whom  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  accustomed  to  reveal  Avhat  ought  to  be  re- 
ceived as  authoritative  in  religion" — he  is  a  man  who 
speaks  by  "Divine  inspiration/'  and  does  not  depend  upon 
his  diligence  and  industry  for  the  truths  which  he  commu- 
nicates. He  is  not  merely  an  individual  who  foretells  the 
future — he  may  write  a  history,  but  he  must  depend  for  his 
facts,  not  upon  historical  research,  but  the  instructions  of 
the  Spirit.  In  other  words,  Augustine  plainly  treats 
Prophet  and  inspired  man  as  terms  of  equivalent  extension. 
When,    therefore,   he   says   that    from    Ezra  to  Christ  no 

^  Hoc  itaque  tempus,  ex  quo  sanctus  Samuel  prophetare  coepit,  et  dein- 
ceps  donee  populus  Israel  captivus  in  Babyloniam  ducereter,  atque  inde 
secundum  sancti  Jeremise  proplietiam  post  septuaginta  annos  reversis  Is- 
raelitis  Dei  domus  instauraretur,  totum  tempus  est  Prophetarum. — Aug., 
De  Civ.  Dei,  lib.  xvii.,  c.  i. 

^  Cujus  rei,  fateor,  causa  me  latet ;  nisi  quod  ego  existimo,  etiani  ipsos, 
quibus  ea  quae  in  auctoritate  religionis  esse  deberent  Sanctus  utiqne  Spir- 
itus  revelabat,  alia  siout  homines  historica  diligentia,  alia  sicut  Prophetas 
inspiratione  Divina  scribere  potuisse;  atque  hiec  ita  fnisse  distincta,  ut 
ilia  tamquam  ipsis,  ista  vero  tamquam  'Deo  per  ipsos  loquenti,  judica- 
rentur  esse  tribuenda :  ac  sic  ilia  pertinerent  ad  ubertatem  cognitionis, 
hffic  ad  religionis  auctoritatem.— .iMr/.,  De  Civ.  Dei,  lib.  xviii.,  c.  xxxviii. 


Let.  XVII.]       TE.STIMONIES    FROM    FOURTH    CENTURY.       697 

Pix)})liet  appeared  among  the  Jews,  he  unquestionably 
means  that  the  gift  of  inspiration  was  withdrawn,  and 
that,  consequently,  no  works  written  during  tiiat  i)eriod 
were  entitled  to  be  received  as  of  authority  in  religion. 
Now,  it  is  notorious  that  a  large  portion,  if  not  all,  of  the 
Apocrypha  was  written  during  this  very  period,  in  which, 
as  it  is  piteously  lamented  in  the  Maccabees,  "a  Prophet 
was  not  seen  among  them."  Therefore,  according  to  Au- 
gustine, a  large  portion  of  the  Apocrypha  is  not  insjiired. 

In  addition  to  this,  there  are  several  passages  in  his 
works  in  which  he  evidently  treats  the  Hebrew  Canon  as 
complete.  In  his  commentary  on  the  fifty-sixth  Psalm,^ 
he  observes,  "  that  all  the  books  in  which  Christ  is  the  sub- 
ject of  prophecy  were  in  the  possession  of  the  Jews.  We 
bring  our  documents  from  the  Jews,  that  we  may  put  other 
enemies  to  confutation:  the  Jew  carries  the  Book  from 
which  the  Christian  derives  his  faith.  The  Jews  are  our 
librarians."  Again,  he  says,  in  another  dissertation :  ^  "  The 
Jews  are  the  escritoirs  of  Christians,  containing  the  Law  and- 
the  Prophets,  which  prove  the  doctrines  of  the  Church." 
And  in  another  place  he  expressly  says  that  the  Law,  the 
Prophets  and  the  Psalms  comprehended  "  all  the  canonical 
authorities  of  the  Sacred  Books."  ^  It  is  notorious,  however, 
that  the  Jews  rejected  the  Apocrypha — that  these  were 
documents  which  they  refused  to  carry;  and  if  Augustine 
received  as  inspired  no  other  works  but  those  which  were 

^  Propterea  auteni  adhuc  .ludiBi  sunt,  ut  libros  nostro.s  portent  ad  conl'n- 
sionem  suam.     Quando  eniiu  volumus  ostendere  prophetatum  Christum, 

proferimus  pajjanis  istas  literas Quia  omnes  ipsic  litera',  <iiiil)',is 

Christus  prophetatus  e.st,  apud  Juda-os  sunt,  omnes  ipsa-s  literas  habcnt 
Judsei.  Proferimus  codices  ab  inimicis,  ut  confundamus  alios  iniuiicos. 
....  Codicem  portat  Judajus,  unde  credat  Ciiristianus.  Librarii  nnstri 
facti  sunt. — Aug.  in  Psa.,  Ivi. 

^  Quid  est  aliud  hodie  gens  ipsa  [.Judajorum],  nisi  qutedam  scriniaria 
Christianorum,  Ijajulaus  legem  et  prophetas  ad  testimonium  assertionis 
Eeclesiic. — Auy.,  lib.  xii.,  contra  Famt,  cap.  xxiii. 

'  Ecclcsiam  suam  domonstrent  ....  in  prescripto  Legis,  in  Propheta- 
runi  prodictis,  in  Psaimoruin  Cantibus,  ....  hoc  est,  in  omnibus  canon- 
icis  sanctorum  iibrorum  autliuritatil)us. — Atig.,  De  Unit.  EccL,  c.  xviii. 


698    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVII. 

acknowledged  bj  the  Hebrew  nation,  it  is  demonsti-ably 
certain  that  he  could  not  have  admitted  any  part  of  the 
Apocrypha  into  the  sacred  Canon.  We  may  come  down, 
accordingly,  to  particular  books,  and  show  that  some  of 
them  are,  by  him,  expressly  and  unequivocally  excluded. 
The  book  of  Judith,  he  informs  us,  possessed  no  canonical 
authority  among  the  Jews.^  Of  the  Maccabees  he  says,^ 
"  The  Jews  do  not  receive  the  scripture  of  the  Maccabees 
as  they  do  the  Law,  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms,  to  which 
our  Lord  bears  testimony.  But  it  is  received  by  the  Church 
not  unprofitably,  if  it  be  read  and  heard  soberly,  especially 
for  the  sake  of  the  history  of  the  Maccabees,  who  suffered 
so  much  from  the  hand  of  persecutors  for  the  sake  of  the 
Law  of  God."  Whatever  the  reception  was  which  the 
Church  gave  to  these  books,  Augustine  justifies  it,  not  on 
account  of  their  Divine  authority,  but  chiefly  or  especially 
on  account  of  the  moral  tendency  of  the  history.  It  is 
plain  that  he  could  not  have  regarded  them  as  inspired, 
since  their  inspiration  w^ould  have  been  the  strongest  of  all 
possible  reasons  for  receiving  them.  We  defer  to  the  m- 
structions  of  an  inspired  composition,  not  because  its  lessons 
are  useful,  but  we  know  that  its  lessons  must  be  useful  be- 
cause it  is  inspired.  Speaking,  in  another  place,  of  these 
same  books,  he  says,^  "The  account  of  these  times  is  not 

1  Per  idem  tempus  etiam  ilia  sunt  gesta,  quae  conscrijita  sunt  in  libro 
Judith,  quem  sane  in  canone  Scripturarum  Judan  non  recepisse  dicuntur. 
— Aug.,  De  Civ.  Dei,  lib.  xviii.,  c.  xxvi. 

^  Et  hanc  quidem  Scripturam,  quje  appellatur  Macchaba?onim,  non 
habent  Judtei,  sicut  Legem  et  Prophetas  et  Psalmos,  quibus  Doininus 
testimonium  perhibet ;  .  .  .  .  sed  recepta  est  ab  ecclesia  non  inutiliter,  si 
sobrie  legatur  vel  audiatur,  maxime  propter  illos  Macchabfeos,  qui  pro  Dei 
lege,  sicut  veri  martyres,  a  persecutoribus  tam  indigna  atque  horrenda 
perpessi  sunt,  etc. — Contr.  Gaudent.  Donat.,  lib.  i.,  cap.  xxxi. 

^  Quorum  supputatio  temporum  non  in  Scripturis  Sanctis,  qufe  ranonicje 
appellantur,  sed  in  aliis  invenitur,  in  quibus  sunt  et  Macchaba?orum  libri, 
quos  non  Judsei,  sed  Ecclesia  pro  canonicis  habet,  propter  quorumdam 
Martyrum  passiones  vehenientes  atque  mirabiles,  qui  antequani  Christus 
venisset  in  carnem  usque  ad  mortem  pro  Dei  lege  certaverunt,  et  mala 
gravissima  atque  horribilia  pertulerunt. — Aug.,  De  Civ.  Dei,  lib.  xviii., 
c.  xxxvi. 


Let.  XVII.]       TESTIMONIES    FROM    FOURTH    CENTURY.      699 

found  iu  tliose  holy  ScriiJtures  whicli  arc  called  canonical, 
but  in  other  works,  among  which  also  are  the  books  of  the 
Macciibees,  which  the  Jews  do  not,  but  which  the  Church 
does,  esteem  to  be  canonical,  on  account  of  the  violent  and 
extraordinary  suflerings  of  certain  martyrs,  who,  previously 
to  the  advent  of  Christ  in  the  flesh,  contended  even  unto 
death  for  the  Law  of  God,  and  endured  grievous  and  hor- 
rible calamities."  Here  again  these  books  are  canonical 
among  Christians,  not  because  they  are  inspired,  but  on  ac- 
count of  the  examples  of  heroic  martyrdom  Avith  which 
they  are  adorned.  The  language  of  this  passage  is  remark- 
able. The  Maccabees  are  first  carefully  distinguished  from 
those  Divine  Scriptures  which  are  called  canonical,  and  then 
it  is  immediately  added  that  the  Church  receives  them  as 
canonical.  Here,  then,  is  either  a  contradiction  (for  it  is 
preposterous  to  limit  the  first  clause  so  as  to  make  Augustine 
assert  that  these  books  did  not  belong  to  the  Scriptures  called 
canonical  by  the  Jews — his  words  are  absolute  and  general), 
or  the  term  canonical  is  used  in  two  distinct  and  separate 
senses — in  one  of  which  it  might  be  universally  affirmed 
that  the  Maccabees  were  not  canoniciil ;  in  the  other,  that 
they  were  canonical  in  the  Christian,  though  not  in  the 
Jewish  Church.  I  might  also  show — but  I  do  not  wish 
to  protract  the  argument — that  Augustine  rejected  Eccle- 
siasticus  and  AYisdom  from  the  list  of  inspired  composi- 
tions.^ 

If,  as  we  have  seen,  Augustine  did  not  receive  the  Apoc- 
rypha as  any  part  of  the  Word  of  God,  what  did  he  mean 
by  canonical  Scrijitures  in  the  catalogue  to  which  we  have 
already  referred?  I  answer,  without  hesitation,  booJcs  which 
might  he  profitably  read  in  the  churches  for  the  public  instruc- 
tion of  the  faithful. 

That  some  of  the  ancient  churches  had  a  canon  of  read- 
ing distinct  from  the  Canon  of  inspired  writings,  may  be 
gathered  from  the  testimony  of  Athanasius,  Jerome  and 
Ruffinus.  The  pa.ssage  from  Athanasius  is  rpioted  in  another 
'  See  Cosin's  Seholastieal  Hist,  (.'annii,  iip.  lUO,  ](»."), 


700   ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.   [Let.  XVII. 

jjart  of  this  discussion.'  Ruffin  says/  "■  It  ought,  how- 
ever, to  be  known  that  there  are  also  other  books  which  are 
not  canonical,  but  have  been  called  by  our  forefathers  ecde- 
siastical;  as  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  and  another  wliicli 
is  called  the  Wisdom  of  the  son  of  Sirach,  and  among  the 
Latins  is  called  by  the  general  name  of  Ecdesktsticus ;  by 
which  title  is  denoted,  not  the  author  of  the  book,  but 
the  quality  of  the  writing.  In  the  same  rank  is  the  book 
of  Tobit  and  Judith  and  the  books  of  the  Maccabees.  In 
the  New  Testament  is  the  book  of  the  Shepherd,  or  of 
Hermas,  which  is  called  the  Two  Ways,  or  the  Judgment 
of  Peter.  All  which  they  would  have  to  be  read  in  the 
churches,  but  not  to  be  alleged  by  way  of  authority  for 
proving  articles  of  faith."  Jerome  says,^  "  As,  therefore,  the 
Church  reads  the  books  of  Judith,  Tobias  and  Maccabees, 
but  does  not  receive  them  among  the  canonical  Scriptures, 
so  also  it  reads  these  two  volumes  [Wisdom  and  Ecclesias- 
ticus]  for  the  edification  of  the  people,  but  not  for  authority 
to  prove  the  doctrines  of  religion." 

Now,  the  preface  to  Augustine's  catalogue  shows  conclu- 
sively that  he  was  not  answering  the  question,  What  books 
were  inspired?  but  another  question.  What  books  might  be 
read?*     He  first  divides  the  Divine  Scriptures  into  two 

1  Page  674.  -  See  original,  quoted  p.  737. 

^  Sicut  ergo  Judith,  et  Tobi,  et  Maccliabteorum  libros  legit  quidem  Eo 
clesia,  sed  inter  canonicas  Scripturas  non  recipit,  sic  et  liaec  duo  volu- 
mina  [Sapientiam  et  Ecclesiastieum]  legit  ad  fedificationem  plebis,  non  ad 
auctoritatem  Ecclesiasticorum  dogniatum  confirmandam. — Hieron.,  Prccjat. 
in  Libros  Salomonis. 

*  Eritigitur  Divinarum  Scripturarum  solertissimus  indagator,  qui  priiuo 
totas  legerit,  notasque  habuerit,  et  si  nondum  intellectu,  jam  tanien  lec- 
tione,  duntaxat  eas  quse  appellantur  canonicce.  Nam  cameras  securius  leget 
fide  veritatis  instructus,  ne  prtpoccupent  imbecillem  animum,  et  periculosis 
mendaciis  atque  phantasmatibus  eludentes,  prpejudiccnt  aliquid  contra 
sanam  intelligentiam.  In  canonicis  autem  Scripturis  Eccli^siannn  Catlml- 
icarum  quam  pluriraura  auctoritatem  sequatur,  inter  quas  sane  ilhv  .<unt, 
quae  Apostolicas  sedes  habere  et  Epistolas  accipere  meruerunt.  Tenebit 
igitur  hunc  raodum  in  Scripturis  canonicis,  ut  eas  qua?  ab  onniibus  acci- 
piuntur Ecclesiis  Catholicis  (^rrpponat  eis  quas  qua?dam  non  accipiunt:  in 
eis  vero  qua^  non  accipiuntur  ab  omnibus  pra'ponat  eas  quas  plurcs  gra- 


Let.  XVII.]      TESTIMONIES   FIJOM    FOURTH   CENTURY.      701 

general  classes — those  which  Avere,  and  those  which  were 
not,  canonical — antl  gives  the  general  advice  that  he  who 
Mould  make  him.self  skilful  in  the  Scriptures  should  con- 
fine his  reading  to  those  which  were  canonical.  Then  he 
draws  a  distinction  between  the  canonical  books  themselves, 
and  shows  that  some,  even  of  this  class,  were  entitled  to 
nuich  more  deference  and  respect  than  others.  He  directs 
his  diligent  inquirer  "to  prefer  such  as  are  received  by  all 
catholic  churches  to  those  which  some  do  not  receive;"  and 
with  regard  to  such  as  are  not  received  by  all,  he  advises 
him  "to  prefer  those  which  are  received  by  many  and 
eminent  churches  to  those  which  are  received  by  few  churches 
and  of  less  authority."  Now,  Trent  itself  being  witness, 
all  inspired  Scripture  is  entitled  to  equal  veneration  and 
respect.  No  matter  if  every  church  under  heaven  should 
agree  to  reject  it,  the  obligation,  supposing  its  inspiration  to 
be  known,  would  still  be  perfect  to  receive  and  obey  it.  Its 
authority  does  not  depend  upon  the  numbers  who  submit 
to  it,  but  upon  the  proofs  that  it  came  from  God.  These 
proofs  can  neither  be  increased  nor  diminished  by  the  multi- 
tude or  pau(;ity  of  those  who  are  convinced  by  them.  If 
they  should  be  confined  to  a  single  church,  and  that  church 
should  proclaim  them  to  a  faithless  world,  the  world  would 
be  as  strongly  bound  to  listen  and  believe  as  though  a 
thousand  sees  had  joined  in  the  act.  From  the  nature  of 
the  case,  evidence  perfectly  conclusive  of  their  Divine  in- 
spiration must,  in  regard  to  some  of  the  Epistles,  have 
existed,  at  first,  only  in  a  single  congregation;  and  even 
while  other  churches  had  not  yet  received  them,  their  au- 
thority was  just  as  perfect  and  complete  as  it  afterwards 
became  when  all  Christendom  confessed  them  to  be  Divine. 
It  is  consequently  ])reposterous  to  measure  the  authority  of 
inspired  Scri{)turc  by  the  number,  dignity  and  importance 

vioresque  accipiunt,  eis  quas  pauciores  minorisque  auctoritatis  Ecclesiffi 
teneiit.  Si  autem  alia.s  invenerit  il  pluribiw,  alias  il  gravioribus  liaberi, 
quamquani  hoc  facil5  invenire  non  possit,  ajqualis  tamen  auctoritatis 
eas  habendas  puto. — Aug.,  De  Doctrina  Christ.,  lib.  ii.,  c.  viii. 


702   ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVII. 

of  the  churches  that  acknowledge  its  claims.  But  if  the 
question  be,  What  books,  in  the  estimation  of  those  who  are 
competent  to  judge,  may  be  safely  read  for  practical  im- 
provement? then  the  rule  of  Augustine  is  just  and  natural, 
You  must  inquire  into  the  experience  of  the  Christian  world 
if  you  wish  to  ascertain  the  works  which  God  has  eminently 
blessed  to  the  comfort,  holiness,  stability  and  peace  of  his 
chosen  children.  It  seems,  as  we  gather  from  Augustine's 
Preface,  that  there  were  works  in  circulation,  under  the  title 
of  Divine  Scriptures,  abounding  in  falsehoods  perilous  to 
the  soul,  which  could  not,  therefore,  be  read  with  safety  or 
with  profit.  In  contradistinction  from  these  dangerous 
books  those  which  might  be  read  with  security  and  ad- 
vantage were  pronounced  to  be  canonical ;  and  his  whole 
purpose  was  to  furnish  a  catalogue  of  safe  religious  works, 
in  order  to  guard  against  the  hazard  and  detriment  to  which 
the  minds  of  the  ignorant  and  unskilful  w^ould  be  otherwise 
exposed.  By  canonical,  therefore,  he  means  nothing  more 
than  useful  or  expedient  as  a  rule  of  life.  The  word  will 
evidently  bear  this  meaning.  It  is  a  general  term,  and,  in 
itself  considered,  expresses  no  more  than  what  is  fit  to  be  a 
rule,  without  any  reference  to  the  authority  which  prescribes 
it  or  the  end  to  which  it  is  directed.  In  its  application  to 
the  inspired  Scriptures  it  conveys  the  idea  of  an  authori- 
tative rule  or  standard  of  faith,  simply  because  they  can  be 
a  rule  of  no  other  kind.  But  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature 
of  the  term  itself  which  prevents  it  from  being  used  to 
signify  a  rule  for  the  conduct  of  life,  collected  either  from 
the  experience  of  the  good,  the  observation  of  the  wise  or 
the  reasoning  of  the  learned.  In  this  sense  an  uninspired 
composition  may  be  eminently  canonical — it  may  supply 
maxims  of  prudence  for  the  judicious  regulation  of  life, 
which,  though  they  are  commended  by  no  Divine  authority, 
are  yet  the  dictates  of  truth  and  philosophy,  and  will  be 
eagerly  embraced  by  those  M'ho  are  anxious  to  walk  circum- 
spectly, and  not  as  fools.  We  do  no  violence,  then,  to  the 
language  of  Augustine  when  we  assort  that  by  canonical 


Let.  XVII.]     TESTIMONIES    FROM    FOURTH   CENTURY.        703 

books,  whieli  he  opposes  to  those  that  were  dangerous  and 
deceptive,  he  meant  books  which  were  calculated  to  edify 
by  the  useful  rules  which  they  furnished,  without  any  refer- 
ence to  the  sources,  whether  supernatural  or  human,  from 
which  they  were  derived. 

This  interpretation  is  strikingly  confirmed  by  tiie  grounds 
on  which,  as  we  have  already  seen,  Augustine  admitted  the 
Maccabees  to  be  canonical.  It  also  reconciles  the  apparent 
contradiction  when  in  the  same  sentence  he  declares  them 
to  be  and  not  to  be  canonical.  They  were  not  canonical  in 
the  same  sense  in  which  the  Law,  the  Prophets  and  the 
Psalms  were  canonical,  but  they  were  canonical  in  a  subordi- 
nate sense,  as  stimulating  piety  by  praiseworthy  examples. 

Having  ascertained  the  opinions  of  Augustine,  we  are  now 
prepared  to  inquire  into  the  meaning  of  the  Council  of 
Carthage.  It  seems  from  the  testimony  of  Ruffinus  that 
the  African  churches  were  accustomed  to  read  other  books 
for  the  public  instruction  of  the  faithful — such,  for  instance, 
as  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas — besides  those  which  were  held 
to  be  inspired.  As  many  works  were  published  under  falla- 
cious and  deceitful  titles,  and  were  current  under  the  name 
of  Divine  Scriptures,  it  was  thought  proper,  in  order  to 
guard  the  churches  against  every  composition  of  this  kind, 
to  draw  up  a  list  containing  all  the  works  which  might  be 
safely  and  profitably  read.  To  furnish  a  catalogue  of  this 
sort  was,  I  apprehend,  the  sole  design  of  the  forty-seventh 
canon.  And  for  the  purpose  of  securing  uniformity  in  the 
public  worship  of  God  it  was  wise  and  judicious  to  consult 
the  churches  beyond  the  sea.  This  interpretation,  which 
the  language  will  obviously  bear,  saves  the  council  from 
the  folly,  wickedness  and  disgrace  of  pronouncing  the  third 
book  of  Ezra  to  be  inspired,  and  of  contradicting  the  testi- 
mony of  all  the  past  ages  of  the  Church  on  the  subject  of 
the  sacred  Canon.  That  this  was  the  meaning  is  distinctly 
intimated  in  the  very  phraseology  of  the  Council  itself: 
"  It  is  ordained  that  nothing  but  the  canonical  Scriptures  be 
read  in  the  Ciiurch  under  the  name  of  Divine  Scriptures." 


704   ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVII. 

It  is  not  said,  Nothing  shall  be  received  as  inspired  by  the 
faithful,  but.  Nothing  shall  be  read.  Then  in  the  close  of 
the  Canon,  as  if  to  put  the  matter  beyond  the  possibility 
of  doubt,  it  is  added :  "  For  the  confirmation  of  this  canon, 
our  brother  and  fellow-jjriest,  Boniface,  or  the  other  bishops 
of  those  parts,  will  take  notice  that  toe  have  received  from 
our  fathers  these  books  to  be  read  in  the  churches.  The  suf- 
ferings of  the  martyrs  may  also  be  read  when  their  anniver- 
saries are  celebrated."  ^  This  paragraph  explains  the  decree. 
We  see  from  Athanasius,  Jerome  and  Ruffinus  what  they 
received  from  the  fathers;  and  they  expressly  incorporate 
uninspired  legends,  the  sufferings  of  the  martyrs,  among  the 
books  that  may  be  read,  showing  that  their  object  was  to 
regulate  the  public  reading  of  the  Church,  and  not  to  deter- 
mine the  Canon  of  inspiration. 

This,  accordingly,  is  the  interpretation  which  distinguished 
Romanists  have  themselves  put  upon  the  language  of  the 
council.  Cardinal  Cajetan,  at  the  close  of  his  commentary 
on  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  observes:^ 

1  Item  placuit,  ut  prseter  Scripturas  canonicas,  nihil  in  Ecclesia  legatur 
sub  nomine  Bivinarum  Scripturannn.  Sunt  autem  canonicw  Scripturas, 
Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Nunieri,  Deuteronomiuin,  Jesus  Nave,  Judi- 
cum,  Ruth,  Eegnorum  libri  quatuor,  Paralipomenon  libri  duo.  Job,  Psal- 
terium  Davidicum,  Salomonis  libri  quinque,  libri  duodecini  Prophetarum, 
Isaias,  Jeremias,  Ezechiel,  Daniel,  Tobias,  Judith,  Esther,  Esdra;  libri 
duo,  Macchabseorum  libri  duo.  Novi  autem  Testamenti,  Evangeliorum 
libri  quatuor,  Actuum  Apostolorum  liber  unus,  Pauli  Apostoli  Epistolae 
tredecim,  ejusdem  ad  Hebrteos  una,  Petri  Apostoli  duje,  Johannis 
Apostoli  tres,  Judse  Apostoli  una,  et  Jacobi  una,  Apocalypsis  Joannis 
liber  unus. 

Hoc  etiam  fratri  et  consacerdoti  nostro  Bonifacio,  vel  aliis  earum  par- 
tiura  Episcopis  pro  confirmando  isto  canone,  innotescat,  quia  a  patribua 
ista  accipiinus  in  Ecclesia  legenda.  Liceat  etiam  legi  passiones  niartyrura, 
cum  anniversarii  dies  eorum  celebrantur. — Con.  Carth.,  iii.,  c.  47. 

2  Et  hoc  in  loco  terminamus  commentaria  Librorum  Historialium  V.  T. 
Nam  reliqui  (viz.,  Judith,  Tobia,  et  Maccab.  libri),  a  S.  Hieronymo  extra 
canonicos  libros  supputantur,  et  inter  Apocn-pha  locantur,  cum  libro  Sa- 
pientijp,  Ecclesiastico,  ut  patet  in  Prologo  Galeato.  Nee  turberis,  Novitie, 
si  alicubi  repereris  libros  istos  inter  canonicos  supputari,  vel  in  sacris  con- 
ciliis,  vel  in  sacris  doctoribus.  Nam  ad  Hieronymi  limani  reducenda  sunt 
tarn  verba  conciliorum,  quam  doctorum ;  et  juxta  illius  sententlara  ad 


Let.  XVII.]    TESTIMONIES    FROM    FOURTH   CENTURY.         705 

"And  here  we  close  our  commentaries  of  the  historical 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  For  the  others  (Judith,  Tobit 
and  Maccabees)  are  not  reckoned  by  St.  Jerome  among  the 
canonical  books,  but  are  placed  among  the  Apocryphal, 
together  with  Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus,  as  is  plain  from 
the  Prologus  Galeatus.  Let  not  the  novice  be  disturbed  if 
in  other  places  he  should  find  that  these  books  were  counted 
among  the  canonical,  either  by  holy  councils  or  holy  doc- 
tors. For  to  the  rule  of  Jerome  the  words  as  well  of 
councils  as  of  doctors  must  be  reduced.  And  according  to 
his  opinion,  these  books  and  all  similar  ones  in  the  Canon 
of  the  Bible  are  not  canonical ;  that  is,  are  not  regular  (or 
to  be  used  as  a  rule)  for  confirming  articles  of  faith,  though 
they  may  be  called  canoirical,  that  is,  regular  (or  may  be 
used  as  a  rule),  for  the  edification  of  the  faithful,  and  are 
received  and  authorized  in  the  Canon  of  the  Bible  only  for 
this  end  ;"  and  with  this  distinction,  he  informs  us,  we  are 
to  understand  St.  Austin  and  the  Council  of  Carthage.  So 
that,  upon  the  showing  of  one  of  the  Trent  doctors — a  man 
who  was  reputed  to  be  the  very  prince  of  theologians — the 
Council  of  Carthage  makes  nothing  in  your  favour.  It  was 
not  treating  of  the  Canon  of  inspiration,  but  of  the  canon 
for  public  reading.' 

4.  Passing  over  your  citations  from  Pope  Siricius  and 
Julius  Firmicus  Maternus  as  presenting  nothing  worthy  of 
a  reply,  I  shall  make  a  few  remarks  upon  Ephrem  the  Sy- 
rian, the  Prophet  of  the  whole  world  and  the  Lyre  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  That  he  has  quoted  the  Apocrypha  admits  of 
no  question :  that  he  believed  them  to  be  inspired  is  quite 

Chrom.  et  Heliod.  Episcopos,  libri  isti  (et  si  qui  alii  sunt  in  canone  Biblije 
similes)  non  sunt  canonici,  hoc  est,  non  sunt  Regulares  ad  firmandum  ea 
quae  sunt  Fidei ;  possunt  tamen  dici  canonici,  hoc  est,  Regulares  ad  a?difi- 
cationem  fidelium,  utpote  in  canone  Biblise  ad  hoc  recepti  et  authorati. 
Cum  hoc  eni[ii  distinctione  discernere  poteris  et  dicta  Augustini  in  2  de 
Doctr.  Christfana,  que  scripta  in  Cone.  Flor.  sub  Eug.  4,  scripta  que  in 
provincialibus  Conciliis  Carthag.  et  Laodic.  et  ab  Innocentio,  ac  Gelasio 
Pontificibus. —  Cajelan  in  lib.  Either,  sub  linem. 

'  See  Bingham's  Origines  Ecclesia.st.,  lib.  xiv.,  c.  3,  ?  IG. 
Vol.  III.— 45 


706    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVII. 

a  different  matter,  and  one  in  reference  to  which  you  have 
produced  not  a  particle  of  proof.  There  are  two  facts,  how- 
ever, which  you  have  thought  proper  to  pass  without  notice, 
that  create  a  very  strong  presumption,  if  they  do  not  amount 
to  a  positive  proof,  against  the  position  which  you  have  un- 
dertaken to  sustain: 

(1.)  Ephrem  repeatedly  asserts  that  Malachi  was  the  last 
of  the  Prophets.^  Therefore  no  books  written  subsequently 
to  his  time  could  have  been  inspired;  and  therefore  nearly 
the  whole  of  the  Apocrypha  must  be  excluded  from  the 
Canon. 

(2.)  Ephrem,  though  he  commented  upon  all  of  the  can- 
onical, wrote  no  commentary  upon  any  of  the  Apocryphal, 
books.^  Why  does  he  omit  Baruch  in  commenting  upon 
Jeremiah?  And  why  omit  the  Song  of  the  Three  Children, 
the  story  of  Susannah  and  the  story  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon, 
if  he  believed  that  these  works  were  parts  respectively  of 
Jeremiah  and  Daniel,  and  entitled  to  equal   authority  with 

^  Judseorum  sacrificia  prophet*  declarant  immunda  fuisse.  Quae  ergo 
Esaias  hoc  loco  hominum  canumve  cadaveribus  sequiparat,  Malachias, 
Prophetarum  ultimus,  anlmalium  retrimenta  vocat,  non  offerenda  Deo, 
sed  offerentium  in  ora  cum  approbatione  rejicienda.  (Malach.  ii.  3.) — 
Comment,  in  Es.,  Ixvi.  3,  T.  ii.,  Syr.  p.  94,  C.  D.  Malachias,  omnium 
Prophetarum  postremus,  populo  commendat  legem,  et  legis  coronidera 
Joannem,  quern  Eliam  cognominat. — Comm.  in  Malach.,  iv.  4,  ib.  p.  315,  c 

^  Hebedjesu  Chaldseus,  e  Nestorianorum  secta  Episcopus  Sobensis,  in 
catalogo  Scriptorum  Syrorum,  num.  51  Ephrsemi  opera  enumerat,  his 
verbis:  Ephrcem  magnus,  qui  Syrorum  Propheta  cogiiominatus  est,  edidit 
commentaria  in  libros  Genesis,  Exodi,  Sacerdotum  (Levitici),  Josiie  Jilii  Nun, 
Judicum,  Samuelis  (primum  et  secundum  Regum),  in  Librum  Regum  (ter- 
tium  et  quartum),  Davldis  (Psalmorum),  Isaice,  Duodecim  (minorum  Pro- 
phetarum), Jeremia>,,  Ezechielis,  et  Beati  Danielis.  Hahet  etiam  Libros,  et 
Episfolas  de  Fide,  et  Ecclesia.  Edidit  quoqm  Orationes  Metricns,  Hymnos, 
et  Cantica:  Cantusque  omnes  Dejunctorum :  et  Lucubrationes  ordine  Alpha- 
betico :  et  Disputationem-  adversiis  Judceos :  necnon  adversus  Simonem,  et  Bar- 
desanem,  et  contra  Mareionem,  atque  Ophitas:  demiim  solutionem  impietaiis 
Juliani.  Ubi  Hebedjesu  ea  dumtaxat  Ephrsemi  opera  recenset,  quse  ipse 
legit,  vel  ad  manus  habuit.  Nam  Ephrsemum  alia  plura  edidisse,  quam 
qure  hie  numerantur,  certum  est  ex  auctoribus  supra  relatis,  et  ex  codice 
nostro  Syriaco  iii.  in  quo  habentur  commentaria  ejusdem  in  Xumeros,  in 
Deuteronomium,  etc. — .4sseHi.,  Biblioth.  Orient.,  vol.  i.,  p.  58. 


Let.  XVII.]     TESTIMONIES   FROM    FOURTH   CENTURY.         707 

the  rest  of  tlic  books  ?  Asseman  informs  us  '  tliat  the  eor- 
rupt  additions  to  Daniel  were  not  contained  in  the  vulgar 
Syriac  Bible,  though  they  were  subsequently  added  from 
Greek  copies,  and  your  own  citations  abundantly  prove  that 
they  were  known  to  Ephrem.  He  must,  therefore,  have 
passed  them  over  by  design.  His  references  to  them  show 
tliat  he  held  them  to  be  historically  true  and  ])ractically 
useful.  Why,  then,  sever  them  in  his  commentaries  from 
the  books  to  which  they  were  generally  attached,  and  of 
which  they  were  supposed  to  be  a  part  ?  I  know  of  but 
one  answer  that  can  be  given,  and  that  is,  that  he  followed 
the  Hebrew  Canon. 

5.  Your  appeal  is  just  as  unfortunate  to  the  great  Basil, 
bishop  of  Csesarea.  Several  of  your  citations  are  taken 
from  that  portion  of  the  treatise  against  Eunomius  which 
is  not  universally  admitted  to  be  genuine.  The  last  two 
books  have  been  called  into  question.  Still,  upon  the  prin- 
ciples which  have  been  repeatedly  explained,  the  strongest 
quotations  which  you  have  been  able  to  extract  from  the 
writings  of  this  Father  do  not  establish  the  Divine  authority 
of  those  books  of  the  Apocrypha  which  he  chose  to  accom- 
modate. We  have,  however,  positive  evidence  that  he  ad- 
mitted as  inspired  only  the  books  which  were  acknowledged 
by  the  Jews.  In  the  Philocalia,  or  Hard  Places  of  Scrip- 
ture, collected  by  him  and  Gregory  Nazianzen  out  of  Origen's 
Avorks,  he  proposes  the  question,^  "Why  were  only  twenty- 

'  Qufe  D.  Hieronymus  ex  Theodotione  transtulit  Danielis  capita,  nimi- 
rum  Canticuin  triiim  puerornm,  cap.  3,  k  vers.  24,  ad  vers.  91.  HiHtoriam 
Susannse,  cap.  13,  Bel  idoli  et  Draconis,  atque  Danielis  in  locum  leonum 
missi,  cap.  14,  ea  et  Ephrajra  Ilebrsecum  Textum  secjuutns,  in  hisce  com- 
nientariis  tacitus  ])ra?teriit.  Hjcc  enim  in  vulgata  Syronim  vcrsione  hand 
extabant;  licet  postea  ex  Grsecis  exemplaribus  in  sernionem  Syriaciim  3. 
recentioribns  Interpretibus  con  versa  fuerint. — Assem.,  Bibliot/t.  Orient., 
vol.  i.,  p.  72. 

And  yet  Gregory  Nyssen,  as  cited  by  Asseman,  tom.  i.,  p.  56,  says  that 
Ephrem  commented  upon  the  lohole  Bible!  Could  these  additions  to 
Daniel,  then,  have  been  a  part  of  it? 

^  Quare  xxii.  Libri  Divinitius  inspirati?  Respondeo,  Quoniani  in 
nuiuerorum  loco,  etc.     Neque  enim  ignorandum  est  quod  V.  T.  libri  (ut 


708     ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVII. 

two  books  divinely  inspired ?"  He  then  goes  on  to  tell  us 
that,  "  as  twenty-two  letters  (the  number  of  the  Hebrew 
alphabet)  form  the  introduction  to  wisdom,  so  twenty-two 
books  of  Scripture  are  the  basis  and  introduction  of  Divine 
wisdom  and  the  knowledge  of  things." 

Again,  in  the  second  book  against  Eunomius,  having 
quoted  the  passage  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  Proverbs,  "  The 
Lord  possessed  me  in  the  beginning  of  his  days,"  Basil  ob- 
serves^ that  "it  is  but  once  found  in  all  the  Bible,"  as 
Eusebius  had  done  before.  And  yet,  if  Ecclesiasticus  is  a 
part  of  the  Bible,  the  statement  is  false,  for  substantially 
the  very  same  thing  is  declared  in  the  ninth  verse  of  the 
twenty-fourth  chapter  of  Ecclesiasticus.  In  fact,  Bellar- 
mine  has  represented  Basil  ^  as  quoting  it  in  the  fourth  book 
against  Eunomius,  from  Ecclesiasticus,  and  because  the 
Father  there  attributes  it  to  Solomon,  the  Jesuit  has  inferred 
that  he  ascribed  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach  to  the  monarch  of 
Israel.  It  is  plain,  however,  that  Basil  had  reference  to 
Proverbs,  and  Proverbs  only. 

6.  Your  next  witness  is  Chrysostom,  who,  you  have  suc- 
ceeded in  proving,  held  the  Apocrypha  to  be  Scripture,  and, 
if  you  please.  Divine  Scripture;  but  you  have  nowhere 
shown  that  he  believed  them  to  be  inspired.  On  the  con- 
trary, he  himself  affirms  in  his  homilies  on  Genesis^  that 
"all  the  inspired  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  origin- 
ally Avritten  in  the  Hehreio  tongue.''^  How  many  of  those 
in  dispute  were  written  in  this  language?  Again,  in  another 
Hebnei  tradnnt)  viginti  et  duo,  quibus  jequalis  est  numerus  Elementorum 
Hebrfeonim.  Non  abs  re  sint.  Ut  enira  xxii.  Literre  introductio  ad  sapien- 
tiam,  etc.,  ita  ad  sapientiam  Dei,  et  remm  notitiani  fundaraentiim  sunt  et 
introductio  Libri  Scripturae  duo  et  viginti, — Philoc,  c.  3,  as  quoted  by 
Cosin.     In  margin  p.  66. 

1  "Aira^  tv  TTciaaiQ  rale  y(}a<paic  etQrjrar  Kvgioc  ektice  [ie. — S.  Bas.,  Adv. 
Eunom. 

2  Bellar.,  De  Ver.  Dei,  lib.  i.,  c.  xiv. 

»  Tiaaai  at  6elac  (il/S^M  rijc  ira^tac  Atadr/Krfc  tti  'E(3patuv  yKdrrt}  ef  apjlf^f 
ijoav  cvvTedeifiivai,  mi  tovto  TravTec  av  fifiiv  cvvoiioloyr/caiEv. — Chry8.  in  Genes., 
Horn.  4. 


Let.  XVII.]    TE.STIMONIES    FROM    FOURTH    CENTURY.         709 

place/  he  acknowledges  no  other  book.s  but  those  which 
Ezra  was  said  to  have  collected,  and  which  were  subse- 
quently translated  by  the  seventy-two  Elder-s,  acknowledged 
by  Christ,  and  spread  by  His  Apostles.  But,  according  to 
your  own  account  of  the  matter,  Ezra  collected  only  the 
books  which  the  Jews  received.  Therefore  Chrysostom 
admitted  none  but  the  Hebrew  Canon.  If  he  sometimes 
(pioted  Ecclesiasticus  and  Wisdom,  or  any  other  books  of 
the  Apocrypha,  as  the  Word  of  God,  it  is  evidently  in  the 
same  loose  way  and  on  the  same  principle  on  which  these 
works  were  ascribed  to  Solomon  or  others  of  the  ancient 
Prophets.  Their  sentiments  were  approved,  and  their  doc- 
trine supposed  to  be  consistent  with  Scripture. 

7.  In  regard  to  Ambrose,  bishop  of  Milan,  all  that  I 
shall  say  is,  that  the  same  process  of  argument  by  which 
you  would  make  him  canonize  the  books  that  Rome  acknow- 
ledges will  also  make  him  canonize  a  book  which  Rome  re- 
jects, wiiich,  according  to  Sixtus  of  Sienna,  no  Father  had 
ever  received,  and  which,  according  to  Bellarmine,  is  dis- 
figured with  idle  fables — the  dreams  of  Rabbins  and  Tal- 
mudists. 

His  language  is  just  as  strong,  pointed  and  precise  in  ref- 
erence to  the  fourth  book  of  Esdras  as  it  is  in  reference  to 
Tobit,  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus  or  Judith.  In  his  book  De 
Bono  Mortis,  having  quoted  the  thirty-second  verse  of  the 
seventh  chapter  of  the  fourth  book  of  Esdras,  Ambrose 
adds  in  the  next  chapter:^  "We  do  not  fear  that  end  due 
to  all,  in  which  Esdras  finds  the  reward  of  his  devotion — 
God  saying  to  him,"  etc.;  and  again,  ^' Esdras  revealed  ac- 

1  'Eri^if)  TidXiv  avdpl  davfiaa-C)  evinvevaev^  Lare  avrag  eKdiadac,  Tij)  'EaJpa 
/lyu^  Koi  QTiO  lecipdvuv  aw-eOf/vai  eTroir/ae.  Mcrd  de  tovto  tl)Kov6fi^atv  ipftfj- 
VEvdijvai  avrac  i-b  ribv  ijiiiofi^KovTa'  ?/Q/jr/VEvaav  ekelvoi.  IlagEyivETo  u  XQiarbr, 
dix^Tai  avrdcj  6i  d-Koaro^joi  hq  Tzavrac  avraq  SiaanEigovai^  aijjiEin  ETroh/as  Kal 
davfiara  o  Xgiardc. — Clirys.  in  Hebr.,  Horn.  viii. 

'  Non  vereamur  ilium  debitiini  omnibus  Hnem,  in  quo  Jlsdrxs  rcmune- 
rationcm  siife  devotioni.s  invenit,  dicente  ei  Domino,  etc.  Quis  uti<juc  prior, 
]->dra.s,  an  Plato?  nam  Paulus  Esdrse,  non  Piatonis  sequutu.s  est  dicta. 
Ksdrxs  revclavit  secundum  coUatam  in  se  revelationem,  justos  futuro.'*  cum 
(iirislo,  futuros  ct  cum  Sanctis. 


710    ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.    [Let.  XVII. 

cording  to  the  revelation  imparted  to  him ;"  and  still  again, 
"  Who  was  the  elder,  Esdras  or  Plato  ?  For  Paul  followed 
the  sayings  of  Esdras,  and  not  of  Plato."  Now,  if  Ambrose 
could  treat  Esdras  as  a  prophet  who  received  a  revelation 
to  be  communicated  to  others,  and  yet  not  really  believe 
him  to  be  inspired — if  his  language,  in  this  case,  must  be 
understood  in  a  subordinate  and  modified  sensed — why  not 
understand  him  in  the  same  way  when  he  applies  a  similar 
phraseology  to  the  other  books  of  the  Apocrypha  ?  Am- 
brose, if  strictly  interpreted,  proves  too  much,  even  for  the 
Jesuits.  They  are  obliged  to  soften  his  expressions,  and  in 
doing  so  they  completely  destroy  the  argument  by  which 
they  would  make  him  canonize  the  books  which  Trent  has 
inserted  in  the  Sacred  Library.  As  to  his  quoting  Wisdom 
and  Ecclesiasticus  under  the  name  of  Solomon,  that  proves 
nothing,  since  he  has  distinctly  informed  us  ^  that  Solomon 
was  the  author  of  only  three  books — Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes 
and  Canticles. 

8.  It  is  unnecessary  to  dwell  upon  your  citations  from 
Paulinus  of  JSTola,  as  they  involve  only  the  same  argument 
which  has  been  so  frequently  refuted ;  and  the  testimony  of 
Augustine,  your  last  witness,  has  been  abundantly  con- 
sidered already. 

It  now  remains  to  sum  up  the  result  of  this  whole  in- 
vestigation. You  undertook  to  prove  that  Rome  was  not 
guilty  of  arrogance  and  blasphemy  in  adding  to  the  Word 
of  God — in  other  words,  you  undertook  to  prove  that  the 
Apocrypha  were  inspired.  For  this  purpose  you  brought 
forward  Jour  arguments,  which  I  shall  collect  in  the  syllo- 
gistic form. 

1.  The  first  was,  Whatsoever  Rome,  being  infallible,  de- 
clares to  be  inspired,  must  be  inspired. 

1  Unde  et  Salomonis  tres  libri  ex  plurimis  videntur  electi :  Ecclesiastes 
de  natiiralibus,  Cantica  Canticorum  de  mysticis,  Proverbia  de  moralibus. — 
In  Ps.  xxxvi.,  pr.  t.  i.,  p.  777.  Quid  etiara  tres  libri  Salomonis,  umis  de 
Proverbiis,  alius  Ecclesiastes,  tertius  de  Canticis  Canticorum,  nisi  trinte 
luijus  ostendunt  nobis  Sapientiffi  sanctum  Salomonem  fuisse  solertem  ?— 
In  Litmm,  pr.  I.  i.,  p.  12(3"2,  A. 


Let.  XVIII.]  REAL  TESTIMONY  OF  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH.    711 

Rome  declares  that  the  Apocrypha  are  so. 

Therefore  the  Apocrypha  must  be  inspired. 

In  a  series  of  E.ssays  I  completely  and  triumphantly  re- 
futed the  major;  so  that  this  argument,  which  was  the  key- 
stone of  the  arch,  fell  to  the  ground. 

2.  Your  second  was,  M'hatsoever  books  Christ  and  His 
Apostles  quoted  nmst  be  inspired. 

Christ  and  His  Apostles  quoted  the  Apocrypha. 

Therefore  the  Apocrypha  must  be  inspired. 

Both  premises  of  this  syllogism  were  proved  to  be  false ; 
so  that  it  is  not  only  dead,  but  twice  dead,  plucked  up  by 
the  roots. 

3.  Your  third  was,  Whatever  books  were  incorporated  in 
the  ancient  versions  of  the  Bible  must  be  inspired. 

The  Apocrypha  were  so  incorporated. 
Therefore  the  Apocrypha  must  be  inspired. 
The  major  was  shown  to  be  without  foundation,  and  con- 
tradicted by  notorious  facts. 

4.  Your  fourth  and  last  was.  Whatever  the  Fathers  have 
quoted  as  Scripture,  Divine  Scripture,  etc.,  must  be  inspired. 

They  have  so  quoted  the  Apocrypha. 

Therefore  the  Apocrypha  must  be  inspired. 

Here  again  the  major  was  shown  to  be  false,  as  these  were 
only  general  expressions  for  religious  literature,  whether 
inspired  or  human.  The  result,  then,  of  the  whole  matter 
is,  that  in  three  instances  your  conclusion  is  drawn  from  a 
single  premiss,  and  in  one  case  from  no  premises  at  all. 
Upon  this  foundation  stand  the  claims  of  the  Apocryphal 
books  to  a  place  in  the  Canon. 


LETTER  XVIII. 

REAL   TESTIMONY    OF   THE    PRIMITIVE    CHURCH. 

Havixc;  now  shown  that  Rome  has  utterly  failed  in  pro- 
du(^ing  a  })articlc  of  proof  in   favour  of  her  adulterated 


712  ARGUMENTS   FOR  APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVIII, 

canon,  I  proceed  to  vindicate  my  original  assertion,  that, 
for  four  centuries,  the  unbroken  testimony  of  the  Christian 
Church  is  against  the  inspiration  of  the  Apocryphal  books. 
During  all  that  period  there  is  not  only  no  intimation  of 
what  you  have  asserted  to  be  true,  that  Christ  and  His 
Apostles  delivered  them  to  the  faithful  as  a  part  of  the  Di- 
vine Rule  of  Faith,  but  there  is  a  large  amount  of  clear, 
positive  and  satisfactory  evidence  that  no  such  event  could 
possibly  have  taken  place. 

The  testimony  of  the  Primitive  Church  presents  itself  to 
us  under  two  aspects  :  It  is  either  negative,  consisting  in  the 
exclusion  of  the  disputed  books  from  professed  catalogues 
of  Scripture ;  or  positive,  consisting  in  explicit  declarations 
on  the  part  of  distinguished  Fathers  that  they  were  not 
regarded  as  inspired.  These  two  classes  of  proof  I  shall 
treat  promiscuously,  and  adduce  them  both  in  the  order  of 
time. 

1.  Little  more  than  half  a  century  after  the  death  of  the 
last  of  the  Apostles,  flourished  Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis,  one 
of  the  seven  churches  to  which  John,  in  the  Apocalypse, 
was  directed  to  write.  Such  was  the  distinguished  reputa- 
tion which  this  good  man  enjoyed  that  Poly  crates,  bishop 
of  Ephesus,  says  of  him  that  he  was  guided  in  all  things 
by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  Tertullian  not  only  praises  "  his 
elegant  and  oratorical  genius,"  but  adds  that  "  he  was 
esteemed  by  many  as  a  prophet."  The  recorded  opinions 
of  such  a  man,  living  near  enough  to  the  times  of  the 
Apostles  to  have  conversed  with  those  who  had  listened  to 
the  Divine  instructions  of  John,  though  not  to  be  receiv^ed 
as  authority,  are  certainly  evidence  of  a  very  high  character. 
It  so  happens,  in  the  providence  of  God,  that  we  have  a  cat- 
alogue of  the  Sacred  Books  drawn  up  by  him  for  his  friend 
Onesimus,  which  he  professes  to  have  made  with  the  utmost 
accuracy,  after  a  full  investigation  of  the  subject.  I  shall 
suifer  him  to  speak  for  himself:  "Melito  sends  greeting  to 
his  brother  Onesimus.  Since  in  thy  zeal  for  the  Word  thou 
hast  often  desired  to  liave  selections  from  the  Law  and  the 


Let.  XVIII. ]  HEAL  TESTIMOXY  OF  PUIMITIVE  CHURCH.    713 

Propliets  concerning  the  Saviour  and  tlie  whole  of  our  faith, 
and  hast  also  wished  to  obtain  an  exact  statenient  of  the 
ancient  Books,  how  many  they  were  in  number  and  what 
was  their  arrangement,  I  took  pains  to  effect  this,  under- 
standing thy  zeal  for  the  fiiith  and  thy  desire  of  knowledge 
in  respect  to  the  Word,  and  that,  in  thy  devotion  to  God, 
thou  esteemest  these  things  above  all  others,  striving  after 
eternal  salvation.  Therefore,  having  come  to  the  Ea.st  and 
arrived  at  the  place  where  these  things  were  preached  and 
done,  and  having  accurately  learned  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  I  have  subjoined  a  list  of  them  and  sent  it  to 
thee.  The  names  are  as  follows :  of  Moses,  five  books : 
namely,  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers  and  Deute- 
ronomy; Joshua,  son  of  Nun,  Judges,  Ruth;  four  books  of 
Kings,  two  of  Chronicles,  the  Psalms  of  David,  the  Prov- 
erbs of  Solomon,  which  is  also  called  Wisdom,  Ecclesiastes, 
Song  of  Songs  and  Job ;  of  Prophets,  the  books  of  Isaiah 
and  Jeremiah,  writings  of  the  twelve  Prophets  in  one  book, 
Daniel,  Ezekiel,  Ezra,  from  which  I  have  made  selections, 
distributing  them  into  six  books."  ^ 

This  testimony,  you  inform  us,^  "  corroborates  the  fact " 
that  in  the  age  of  Melito  "  the  practice  of  the  Christian 

1  Me'AiTuv  'OvTjaifiu  t<j  af5e/\0w  X'^^9^'^^'  t'^rE^J/;  -oX/idKir  ij^iuaa^  a-ov(h)  ry 
TTpof  Tov  Myov  xp<^l^£voc  yeviadai  aoi  ekao)  df,  ek  re  tov  vofiov  koX  tuv  ~go^?/7cjv 
neql  tov  cuttjqoq  kuI  tvacTj^  ttjc  iriaTtug  fj/xuv.  ert  6e  koi  fiadelv  tj/v  tCjv  tto^miuv 
jii^Tuuv  ij3ov?t,^d7jc  aKgiSeiaVj  Trdaa  tov  agidjibv  koX  dTzola  tt/v  tA^lv  hev^  ecno'v- 
Saaa  to  tocovto  Trpa^a/,  iTriGTafievoQ  aov  to  aKovSdlov  tteqi  tt/v  iriaTiv^  koi  <piAo- 
fioBtg  negl  tov  X6yov,  otl  re  jiakiCTa  izavTuv  Trodcj  tu  tzqoq  debv  Taiira  TTQOKpiveir^ 
nepl  Tf/g  aluviov  auTijQiaq  aycjvil^o/ievog'  ave/Jdiiv  ovv  he  tj/v  avaTo7j/v^  kuI  eug 
TOV  t6kov  yevofievog  irda  hKijgi'xQ'l  koX  hngaxG'],  i^fit  (iK^ijiug  fiaduv  Ta  Tf/q  Tra- 
Xaidg  6iadi]Kijq  jiiji'^.ia  vTVOTa^ag  eTrefi^f'd  aoc  uv  egtI  to.  bv6iiaTa'  Muvaiug 
TzivTe  Tevemg,  'Eforfof,  Aevitikov,  'AQidfiot,  AEVTEpovS/x'.ov  'Ir/aovg  'Savrj, 
KQiral^  'Povd'  HaailEiuv  Teaaapa,  Jlapa?.Enrofievo)v  6vo.  "iaXfiuv  Aafii^,  2oAo- 
jiuvog  Tlagocfitai,  rj  Kal  'Zo(pla,  EKK?.7/aia(jT^g,  ^  Aafia  'AfffiaTuv,  '16(3'  Dpo^^rwv, 
'Uaatov,  'Ieqe/iiov  tuv  f5cj(5eKa  iv  jxavo^'ijiXu,  AaviTj?.,  'Is^EKii/X^  EaSgag.  'Ef  wv 
hfu  Tag  EK^oydg  E7rot?/aa/u/Vj  tig  ef  jiijiyia  6ie7mv. — Melito^a  Letter  to  Onesimus, 
Eiiscb.,  B.  iv.,  c.  26. 

'  "  His  testimony  corroborates  the  fact,  otherwise  clearly  proven,  that  at 
his  day  the  practice  of  the  Christian  world  was  at  variance  with  the  opin- 
ion whii-h  lie  advanced." — A.  P.  F.,  Lett.  xiii. 


714  AUCUxMENTS   FOR    APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVIII. 

world  was  at  variance  with  the  opinion  which  he  advanced." 
In  other  words,  I  understand  you  to  assert  that  the  Epistle 
itself  furnishes  satisfactory  proof  that  at  the  period  in  which 
it  was  written  a  dififerent  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was 
generally  received  from  that  which  is  presented  in  it.  But, 
sir,  in  what  part  of  the  letter  can  this  corroborating  evidence 
be  found  ?  Melito  evidently  writes  with  the  confidence  of 
a  man  who  knew  that  he  was  possessed  of  the  truth.  He 
professes  to  give  an  exact  statement  of  the  names,  number 
and  arrangement  of  the  Sacred  Books,  and  nowhere  does  he 
drop  the  most  distant  hint  that  opposing  sentiments  were 
held  upon  the  subject,  or  that  any  other  works  had  ever 
been  commended  by  any  portion  of  Christendom  as  entitled 
to  equal  veneration  with  those  which  he  had  enumerated. 
HoAv  then  does  his  testimony  corroborate  the  fact  that  at 
his  day  the  practice  of  the  Christian  world  was  different 
from  the  opinion  which  he  advanced  ?  AVill  the  reader  be- 
lieve it  ?  ^  Because  he  investigated  the  subject  and  formed 
his  conclusion  from  personal  examination,  it  is  confidently 
inferred  that  the  whole  matter  must  previously  have  been 
involved  in  uncertainty  or  doubt.  Sir,  you  have  forgotten 
your  chronology.  That  was  an  age  of  private  judgment ; 
the  Son  of  Perdition  had  not  then  enslaved  the  understand- 
ings of  men.  Priestly  authority  was  not  received  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  light,  and  the  mere  dicta  of  ghostly  confessors 
were  not  regarded  as  the  oracles  of  God.  The  easy  art  of 
believing  by  proxy,  Avhich  must  always  result  in  personal 
damnation,  was  then  wholly  unknown.  Tremblingly  alive 
to  the  importance  of  truth,  and  deeply  impressed  with  the 
dangers  of  delusion,  the  faithful  of  that  day  felt  the  respoii- 

1  "  Melito,  according  to  his  own  statement,  came  to  the  conchision  set 
forth  in  his  letter,  after  he  had  travelled  into  Palestine  and  had  there 
investigated  the  question.  From  this  we  are  forced  to  infer  that  he  had 
not  been  taught  in  his  youth  at  Sardis,  and  that  it  had  not  been  made 
known  to  him,  even  in  his  maturer  years,  while  he  was  a  priest,  and  per- 
haps the  bishop  of  that  church.  It  was  precisely  by  his  inquiries  in  Jiidea 
that  he  was  led  to  the  opinion  which  he  finally  adopted." — A.  P.  F., 
Lett.  xiii. 


Let.  XVIII.]  RE.\L  TESTIMONY  OF  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH.    715 

sihility  that  rested  upon  tliom  to  "  try  the  spirits,"  "  to 
prove  all  things,  and  hold  fast  that  which  was  good." 
Hence,  Melito  determined  to  be  gnided  only  by  evidence ; 
and,  acting  in  obedience  to  the  apo.stolic  injnnction,  wisely 
resolved  to  investigate  the  snbject  and  to  form  his  o})inions 
upon  accurate  research.  He  accordingly  visits  the  country 
whence  the  Gospel  had  sprung,  traverses  the  region  where 
Jesus  had  laboured,  converses  with  the  churches  in  which 
Apostles  had  taught,  and  ascertained  the  Books  on  which 
they  were  relying  for  the  words  of  life. 

As  you  are  perfectly  confident,  however,  that  the  testimony 
of  INfelito,  commended  as  it  is  by  his  diligence  and  care, 
must  be  worthless  because  it  is  unfavourable  to  the  interests 
of  Home,  you  invent  three  hypotheses,^  by  means  of  one 
of  which  you  hope  to  obviate  its  natural  result.  It  was 
either  his  object,  according  to  you,  to  publish  the  Canon  of 
the  churches  in  Palestine,  or  to  give  that  of  the  Jewish 
Synagogue,  or  to  express  his  own  private  opinion  that 
Christians  should  receive  no  other  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment but  those  which  were  acknowledged  by  the  Jews.  If 
mere  conjecture  is  to  settle  the  matter,  it  is  just  as  easy  to 
make  a  fourth  supposition — that  his  real  design  was  to  com- 
pare the  faith  of  Asia  and  Palestine,  and  to  give  the  Canon 
of  the  Christian  world,  so  far  as  he  was  able  to  ascertain 
what  it  was.  Let  us,  however,  test  the  value  of  your  three 
evasions. 

(1.)  If  it  were  the  object  of  ^lelito  to  state  the  books 
which  the  churches  of  Palestine  believed  to  be  insi)ired,  we 
may  regard  it  as  settled  that  they  received  none  but  those 
which  are  contained  in  his  list.  Tlien,  of  course,  then  re- 
jected the  Apocrypha.  Now,  these  churches  were  planted 
by  the  hands  of  the  Apostles;  they  were  the  first  fruits  of 

'  "  If,  on  the  other  hand,  Melito,  disregarding  the  practice  of  the 
Church,  even  in  Palestine,  and  seduced  by  peculiar  views  on  the  author- 
ity and  sanctions  of  the  Jewish  Canon,  as  opposed  to  the  usage  of  the 
Cluirch,  intended  in  his  letter  to  give  us  the  Hooks  contained  in  the  Jew- 
isii  Canon,  manifestly  his  testimony  does  not  touch  the  point  before  us  at 
all."— ^.  P.  F.,  Lett.  .xiii. 


716  ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVIII. 

the  Christian  ministry;  and  here,  if  anywhere,  we  should 
expect  to  find  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  Books  which 
the  Apostles  had  prescribed  as  the  rule  of  faith.  Strange, 
very  strange,  if  within  sixty  years  after  the  last  of  the  Sa- 
cred College  had  fallen  asleep  so  little  regard  was  paid  to 
their  instructions  in  the  scene  of  their  earliest  labours  that 
six  entire  works,  together  with  divers  fragments  of  others, 
had  been  ruthlessly  torn  from  the  inspired  volume  as  de- 
livered to  these  churches  by  their  venerable  founders !  To 
say,  as  you  have  done,^  that  the  Apostles,  in  tenderness  to 
their  early  prejudices,  permitted  the  Hebrew  Christians  to 
retain  the  Canon  of  the  Jewish  Church,  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  Apocrypha,  is  to  contradict  what  you  have  elsewhere 
said — that  the  Jews  themselves  entertained  a  profound  re- 
spect for  the  disputed  books,  and  would  have  admitted  them 
into  their  sacred  library  if  they  had  had  the  authority  of  a 
Prophet.  These  Jewish  " prejudices,^^  consequently,  are  a 
desperate  expedient,  invented  solely  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
conciling the  notorious  faith  of  the  churches  in  Judea  with 
what  Rome  chooses  to  represent  as  apostolic  teaching.  You 
tell  us  in  one  breath  that  the  Apostles  delivered  the  Apoc- 
rypha to  the  primitive  Christians  as  inspired,  and  then  iu 
the  very  next  declare  that  they  did  not  deliver  them  to  the 
churches  in  Judea,  because  the  stifF-necked  children  of 
Abraham  would  not  receive  them.  But  when  the  question 
was,  Did  the  Jewish  Church  reject  the  Apocrypha  from  the 
sacred  Canon  ?  we  were  then  informed  that  this  was  not  the 
case — that  it  was  a  great  admirer  of  the  contested  books, 
and  would  cheerfully  have  received  them  if  it  had  been 
commissioned  by  a  proper  tribunal.  It  is  certainly  not  a 
little  singular  that  the  Jews  should  be  so  warmly  attached 
to  the  books  as  to  be  willing  to  canonize  them  upon  suf- 

'  "The  fact  that  a  small  portion  of  the  universal  Church,  converts  from 
Judaism,  should  cling  to  the  observances  of  those  ancestors  whom  they 
revered,  and  whom  every  hill  and  dale  recalled  to  their  minds,  does  not 
condemn  other  churches  wliich,  untrammelled  by  any  such  restrictions, 
unswayed  by  any  such  motives,  walked  boldly  under  the  guidance  of  the 
.\postles." — A.  P.  F.,  Lett.  xiii. 


Lkt.  XVIII.]  REAL  TE8TIM0XY  OF  PRIMITIVE  CHURCIT.    717 

ficient  authority,  and  yet  so  violently  pnjudieed  against 
them  that  the  whole  College  of  Aj)o.stles  eould  not  subdue 
their  opposition.  I  have  no  knaek  at  explaining  riddles, 
and  must  therefore  leave  these  high  mysteries  to  those  who 
can  swallow  transubstantiation.  In  the  mean  time  I  may  be 
permitted  to  remark  that  the  Apostles  were  not  in  the  habit 
of  surrendering  truth  to  prejudice ;  and  if  the  churches  of 
Palestine  knew  nothing  of  their  having  endorsed  the  Apoc- 
rypha as  inspired,  the  presumption  is  irresistible  that  no 
such  thing  ever  took  place.  What  they  preached  to  the 
Gentiles  they  preached  first  to  the  Jews ;  and  as  to  all  the 
world  they  had  ])roelaimed  one  Lord  and  one  baptism,  so 
they  had  likewise  proclaimed  only  one  faith. 

(2.)  Your  second  hypothesis,  that  jNIelito  intended  to  state 
the  Canon  of  the  Jewish  synagogue,  and  not  of  the  Chris- 
tian churches,  is  contradicted  by  his  own  words.  How 
could  the  zeal  of  Onesimus  in  the  faith  be  an  inducement 
to  give  him  only  a  part  of  its  standard  ?  And  how  would  he 
be  assisted  in  acquiring  knowledge  by  being  led  into  serious 
error?  Onesimus  desired  an  exact  statement  oi  the  Books 
of  the  Old  Testament.  But,  according  to  you,  Melito 
furnishes  him  only  with  those  books  which  the  Jews  re- 
ceived, and  consequently  omitted  an  important  portion  of 
the  whole  Old  Testament.  Yet  Melito  himself  says  that  he 
had  fully  complied  with  the  request  of  his  friend.  So  that 
either  your  supposition  must  be  false,  or  the  good  bishop, 
who,  Polycrates  says,  was  guided  in  all  things  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  was  guilty  of  a  falsehood. 

(3.)  Your  third  hypothesis,  that  he  only  intended  to  ex- 
press his  private  opinion,  in  opposition  to  the  prevailing 
practice  of  the  Church,  as  to  the  books  which  owfht  to  be 
received,  hardly  deserves  a  serious  notice.  That  a  man 
should  travel  from  Sard  is  to  Jerusalem  to  ascertain  the 
documents  which  the  apostolic  churches  held  to  be  insi)ired, 
then  give  the  result  of  his  inquiries  with  the  strongest  ex- 
pression of  confidence,  when  his  conclusions  were  notori- 
ouslv  at  variance  with  the  faith  of  the  cliurches  on  which 


718  ARGUMENTS   FOE   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVIII, 

he  had  relied — in  otlier  words,  that  he  shoukl  entertain  so 
mnch  respect  for  the  opinion  of  the  Hebrew  and  Eastern 
churches  as  to  make  a  long  journey  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
sulting them,  and  after  all  pay  no  attention  to  their  opinions 
at  all — is  a  proposition  too  monstrous  to  be  deliberately 
maintained.  I  do  not  deny  that  Melito  has  given  us 
his  private  opinion,  but  I  do  deny  that  he  has  given  an 
opinion  peculiar  to  himself.  His  own  statement  is  certainly 
worthy  of  credit ;  his  object  was  to  give  (and  he  professes  to 
have  done  it)  an  exact  account  of  the  names,  number  and 
arrangement  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  He  fab- 
ricated no  new  canon  for  himself,  but  recorded  the  Books, 
and  all  the  Books,  which  the  churches  of  the  East  believed 
to  be  inspired.  From  Jerusalem  to  Sardis,  consequently,  in 
all  the  churches  planted  by  Apostles,  there  was  but  one 
voice,  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  as  to  the 
documents  which  compose  the  Old  Testament ;  and  that 
voice,  which  may  almost  be  regarded  as  a  distant  echo  of  the 
preaching  of  the  Twelve,  condemns  the  Canon  of  Trent. 

As  to  the  objection  that  Melito  has  omitted  the  book  of 
Esther,  I  reply  in  the  words  of  Eichhorn.^  "  It  is  true," 
says  he,  "  that  in  this  catalogue  Xehemiah  and  Esther  are 
not  mentioned ;  but  whoever  reads  the  passage  and  under- 
stands it  will  here  discover  both  of  them.  Melito  here  ar- 
ranges the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  manifestly  according 
to  the  time  in  which  they  were  Avritten  or  in  which  the  facts 
which  they  record  occurred.  Hence,  he  places  Ruth  after 
the  book  of  Judges,  Daniel  and  Ezekiel  towards  the  end  of 
his  catalogue,  and  Ezra  last  of  all,  because  he  wrote  after  the 
Babylonian  captivity;  and  accordingly  as  he  comprehended 
the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  under  the  general  appella- 
tion books  of  Kings,  because  they  related  to  the  history  of 
the  Hebrew  kingdom  from  Saul  to  Zedekiah,  or  until  the 
Babylonian  captivity,  in  the  same  manner  he  appears  to 
comprise  under  the  name  of  Ezra  all  historical  books  the 
subjects  of  which  occur  in  the  times  subsequent  to  the  Baby- 
'  Vide  Eicli.,  Einleit.,  xli. 


Let.  XVIII.]  EEAL  TESTIMONY  OF  PUIMITIVE  CHURCH.    719 

Ionian  captivity.  As  it  is  very  oonnnon  to  include  Ezra 
ami  Xeheniiah  in  one  book,  why  nii<2:lit  not  even  Ezra,  Nehe- 
miali  and  Esther  also  have  been  re«i;arded  as  a  whole?  If 
we  add  to  this  conjecture,  that  Xeheniiah  and  Esther,  accord- 
ing to  Josephus,  must  have  been  parts  of  the  Canon,  and 
that  Fathers  of  authority,  such  as  Origen  and  Jerome,  ex- 
pressly enumerate  botii  in  it,  no  impartial  inquirer  can  well 
doubt  that  even  Melito  does  not  reject  from  the  Canon  of 
the  Old  Testament  the  two  books  mentioned." 

To  this  it  may  be  added  that,  according  to  any  of  your 
three  hypotheses  which  have  just  been  considered,  Esther 
must  have  been  included.  If  Melito  intended  to  state  the 
Canon  of  the  Hebrew  Christians — and  that,  as  you  have 
said,  coincided  with  the  Canon  of  the  Jewish  Church — this 
book  was  confessedly  a  part.  It  was  also  acknowledged  by 
the  Jewish  Synagogue,^  and  any  private  opinions  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  practice  of  the  Christian  Church  which  Melito 
might  have  been  induced  to  form  from  his  intercourse  with 
the  Jews  could  not  have  led  him  to  reject  its  authority. 
Your  conjecture  that  he  forgot  to  mention  it  is,  when  we 
consider  his  pretensions  to  accuracy,  wholly  incredible.  As 
therefore  it  must  have  been  included,  the  account  which 
Eichhorn  has  given  of  the  matter  is  probably  the  true  ex- 
planation. In  this  opinion  he  is  sustained  by  Cosin,  a  man 
as  learned  as  himself. 

.2.  The  next  writer  to  whom  I  shall  appeal — and  you  have 
pronounced  his  eulogy — is  Origen.  Eusebius  says  of  him 
that  "  in  expounding  the  first  Psalm  he  has  given  a  cata- 
logue of  the  sacred  Books  in  the  Old  Testament,  writing  as 
follows :  ^  '  Let  it  not  be  unknown  that  the  canonical  books, 

1  Vide  Cosin,  Scholaat.  Hist.  Can.,  p.  33. 

'  Tbv  jikv  Toiye  ttqutov  k^Tjydvfievoq  ■ia'/.fiov,  eKdeaiv  TreTToir/Tai  ['S2pp/£v;?f] 
Toi)  Tuv  ieguv  ygarpuv  rfjq  ira'/xiiaQ  ^laOf/Kt/c  KaraXdyov^  uSe  ttcjc  ygcKpuv  Kara 
?-i^iv'  OvK  ayvotjriov  J*  elvai  rdf  ivdiaJdTjKOv^  i3i)3?MVC,  wf  'EfSQaioi  ^ruQadiddaaiv, 
6vo  Kal  elKoar  baoc  6  apiduug  tuv  Trap'  avToic  (Jtoix^iojv  koTiv  dra  fzcTd  riva, 
kTTi^ipei  liyuv  "E'lai  (5c  al  elKoat  6vo  jSipM  Kaff  'EfSpaiovc  aide-  ^  Trap'  r/ftiv  Ti- 
vemg  kziye^fa/ifiivrf.  -apd  6i  'E,3paioic  a-d  rr/c  apx'k  ''W  ti'P-ov  Bp^crttf,  bnip 
'iTTiv  £V  apxv'  'Eiodoc,  Oi'a?.ea//u0,   6Tfp  con  ravra  ra  ovd/xara'     AeviTiKov 


720  ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVIII. 

as  the  Hebrews  transmit  them,  are  twenty-two ;  for  such  is 
the  number  of  letters  among  them.'  "  A  little  flirther  on, 
he  adds,  "  These  are  the  twenty-two  books  of  the  Hebrews : 
the  Book  called  Genesis  with  us,  but  among  the  Hebrews, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  Book,  Bereshith,  which  means. 
In  the  Beginning :  Exodus,  Valmoth,  that  is,  These  are  the 
Names  :  Leviticus,  Vaikra,  And  he  Called  :  Numbers,  Am- 
misphekodeum  :  Deuteronomy,  Ellahhaddebarim,  These  are 
the  Words :  Jesus,  the  Son  of  Nave,  Joshua  Ben  Nun : 
Judges,  Ruth,  with  them  united  in  one  book  called  So- 
phetim :  Kings,  first  and  second,  with  them,  in  one  called 
Samuel,  the  Called  of  God :  the  third  and  fourth  of  Kings, 
in  one  book,  Yahammelech  Dabid,  that  is,  the  Kingdom  of 
David :  the  first  and  second  of  Chronicles,  in  one  book 
called  Dibre  Hiamim,  that  is,  the  Eecords  of  Days :  the 
first  and  second  of  Esdras,  in  one  book,  called  Ezra,  that  is, 
The  Assistant :  the  Book  of  Psalms,  Sej)her  Tehillim :  the 
Proverbs  of  Solomon,  Misloth  :  Ecclesiastes,  Koheleth  :  the 
Song  of  Songs,  Sir  Hasirim  :  Esaias,  Jesaia :  Jeremiah,  with 
the  Lamentations  and  his  Epistle,  in  one  volume,  Jeremiah : 
Daniel,  Daniel :  Ezekiel,  lesekel :  Job,  Job  :  Esther,  Esther : 
beside  these,  there  are  also  the  Maccabees,  -which  are  in- 
scribed Sarbeth  Sarbaneel."  In  this  catalogue  the  book  of 
the  twelve  minor  Prophets  is  omitted  through  a  mistake  of 
the  transcriber.  It  is  supplied  both  by  Nicephorus  and 
Ruffinus.  By  the  Epistle  of  Jeremiah  we  are  not  to  under- 
stand the  apocryphal  letter,  for  the  Jews  never  received  that 

oviKQa,  Kul  EKaTiEaeV  'Aptd/ibi  '  AjUfiea(j)eKo6eiiiiy  Aevrsgovd/xiov  '  E?,?.e  dSSe^ofilfi, 
ovToi  01  /.6yor  'Irjcovq  vlbq  '^nvT/^  'I(oaove  fiev  'Novv  K^iral,  'Pov6,  Tzap'  avroic 
EV  hi  ^uxpETifj.,  (iacilsiuv  tvqutt]^  SevTepa,  nag'  avTOtc  ev  2a/:iov^?i,  6  6edK?.7fTOi' 
PaaiAEiuv  Tgirrj,  Terdgr?/  tv  hi  Ova/i/xeXex  AajSlS,  okeq  iari  (iaaiT^eia  Aaliii. 
TlaQaXEinofihuv  ng^TTj^  dEvrega,  h  hi  Aifigfj  aia/xlju,  OTzkg  eoTi  7.6yoi  ijjikgiiV 
'Effrfpof  Trpwrof  koX  dEVTsgoq  h  hi,  'El^ga,  b  hn  jioifid^-  (iijilo^  ■^a^.ftuv  li(j>eg 
diXklfi.  lolofiuvToq  Ilagoi/xiai  MiaT^ud,  'EKKljjaiacrf/g,  Ku£?.e6'  'Aff/za  'Aofja- 
Tuv,  Hlg  daaiglfi.  'Hcmmf,  'lEaa'id,  'lEgsfiiag  (jvv  Qgijvoig  Koi  n)  £mcTo7.^,  ev 
hi  'Ig/iia,  Aavti}?.,  Aavtijl.  '  1e(^eki7j7i,  IsSi^Kr/?.,  'Iw/?  '1^/3.  'Ecrdi/g,  'Ea6r/g,  l^u 
6e  tovtuv  karl  rd  MaK/ca/Sai/ca,  aTrsg  ETriyeygaTrrat  "ZagliijO  2agj3av£  'EX. — 
Origen.,  Can.fr.  Euseb.  Eccl.  Hist.,  vi.  25. 


Let.  XVIII.]  REAL  TESTIMONY  OF  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH.    721 

as  canonical,  but  the  one  which  occurs  in  the  twenty-ninth 
chapter  of  the  book  of  his  Prophecy. 

Such  then  is  Origen's  catalogue,  in  which,  although  he 
has  followed  the  Jews,  for  they  are  the  only  safe  guides  on 
this  subject,  he  has  given,  according  to  Eusebius,  "the 
books  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament."  It 
is  expressly  stated  that  the  Maccabees  are  out  of  the  Canon; 
and  of  the  other  works  in  the  Apocrypha  not  a  syllable  is 
mentioned. 

The  Epistle  to  Julius  Africanus,'  upon  which  you  have 
relied  to  make  Origen  contradict  himself,  does  not  assert 
the  Divine  inspiration  of  the  story  of  Susannah,  but  vindi- 
cates it  simply  as  a  historical  narrative  from  the  charge  of 
being  a  fabulous  imposture.  Africanus  had  asserted  the 
book  to  be  a  fiction,  grossly  spurious  and  utterly  unworthy 
of  credit.  It  was  from  this  accusation  that  Origen  defended 
it,  and  showed  conclusively  that  some  of  the  reasoning 
M'hich  his  friend  adopted,  if  carried  out  into  its  legitimate 
results,  would  sadly  mutilate  even  the  records  which  the 
Jews  acknowledged.  The  Church  had  permitted  this  story 
to  he  read,  and  Origen  maintains  its  substantial  authenticity, 
in  order  that  the  Church  might  not  be  subject  to  the  odious 
imputation  of  having  given  to  her  children  fables  for  truth. 
Such  books  were  recommended  to  the  faithful  as  valuable 
helps  to  their  personal  improvement.  This  was  evidently 
done  upon  the  supposition  that  the  facts  which  they  con- 
tained were  worthy  of  credit;  and  as  this  was,  perhaps,  the 
general  belief,  in  which  Africanus  could  not  concur,  Origen 
merely  intended  to  prove  tliat  it  was  not  at  least  without 
some  foundation. 

It  is  true  that  this  Father  has  freely  quoted  the  Apocry- 
phal books  under  the  same  titles  which  are  usuallv  bestowed 
on  the  canonical  Scriptures.  So  also  has  he  quoted  in  the 
same  way  the  spurious  prophecy  of  Enoch,  tlie  She{)herd 
of  Hermas,  the  Acts  of  Paul  and  the  Gospel  according  to 
the  Hebrews.  He  has  even  gone  so  flu-,  in  reference  to  the 
'  Vide  Opera  Origen,  vol.  i.,  p.  10,  seq. 


Vol..  III.— 46 


722  ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVIII. 

Shepherd,  as  to  say  that  this  Scripture  was,  as  he  supposed, 
divinely  inspired}  I  cannot  believe,  however,  that  Origen 
intended  to  convey  the  idea  that  this  mystical  medley  should 
be  entitled  to  equal  veneration  with  the  Prophets,  Apostles 
and  Evangelists.  He  simply  meant  to  commend  the  heav- 
enly and  holy  impulses  under  which,  as  he  conceived,  the 
work  had  been  written.  From  incidental  expressions  of 
this  sort,  which  are  often  nothing  but  terms  of  respect,  we 
are  not  to  gather  the  real  position  which,  in  the  opinions  of 
those  who  use  them,  a  book  is  to  occupy  in  relation  to  the 
Canon  of  supernatural  inspiration.  There  is  nothing,  con- 
sequently, to  diminish  the  value  or  obviate  the  force  of  the 
plain  and  pointed  testimony  which  Origen  has  given  to  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  in  a  formal  catalogue  in  which 
they  are  professedly  numbered  and  arranged. 

3.  I  shall  now  give  the  Canon  of  Athanasius,  which  may 
be  found  in  his  Festal  Epistle.^  "For  I  fear,"  says  he, 
"lest  some  few  of  the  weaker  sort  should  be  seduced  from 

^  Puto  tamen,  quod  Hermas  iste  sit  scriptor  libelli  illius,  qui  Pastor  ap- 
pellatur :  quse  scriptura  valde  mihi  utilis  videtur,  et  ut  puto,  divinitus  in- 
spirata. — Explan.  Rom.  xvi.  14. 

"^  '^ireiS^ireg  tiveq  kTVExsi-gTiaav  avard^aadai  iavroig  rd  XeySfzeva  'ATrdicpv^ 
Kat  ETTifii^ai  Tavra  Tij  deoirvEvarcp  yQa<p7j  tteqI  r]q  k7r?i7/QO(poQ^fi£Vj  koBuq  tto^- 
doaav  role  Trar^daiv  oi  aw'  apxvS  avTOKrac  Kal  vnT/gETai  yevdfiEVOi  rov  Myov 
eSo^E  KgjLtol  TrgoTQairevTt  Trapd  yvT/aluv  dth^Kpcbv  Kal  fiadovri  avudev^  t'^i/c  hiOiCtftu 
TO.  Kavovt^b/UEva  Kai  ■Kagadodevra  TrtarEvdhra  te  dsta  Eivai  ,?/,?/./«•  Iva 
EKaaroc,  £i  fisv  -^TraTr/drj,  Karayvu  ruv  n?iav7jadvTuv'  6  de  Kadapbc  dtaueimc 
Xaigy  ndTiiv  VKOfiifiv^aKd/nEvoQ,  'Earc  rdivw  T?}g  fiiv  Tra?.aidg  Siadr/KT/g  jic^/Ja 
TG)  dgiOfiu  TO.  wdvra  'Ei.ko<tc6vo.  Toaavra  yap,  6c  ^Kovaa,  kuI -a  aroixiui 
TO  Trap'  Efipaioig  eivac  TrapadESorai.  rjf  6e  rd^si  Kal  tu  ovd/nari  eotlv  Emarov 
bvTuc'  TipuTov  Tsveaig,  lira  'E^odog,  hra  AevitckoVj  Kal  fisra  tovto  'AptOfibi, 
Kal  /MLTTov  TO  A£VTEpov6fiiov  k^Tjg  6i  TovToig  iarlv  lijaovg  b  tov  "Saw),  koI 
Kpirdi.  Kal  fiErd  tovto  t)  ¥dvd.  Kal  7rd?uv  e^^q  Baailsiuv  Tsaaapa  /Jt/JAia* 
Kal  To'vTuv  Tb  fiEV  TvpuTOV  Kal  SsvTEpov  Eig  Ev  (it/3?uov  apidfZEiTar  to  Se  Tpirov 
Kol  TETapTov  ofioiug  kig  ev.  Me-a  Ss  rdvra  TiapalELirofihuv  a  Kal  3'  ofioiug  tig 
EV  (iifi^uov  TzdT^tv  dpidfioii/iiEva.  'Eira  EaSpdg  a  Kal  /?'  bfiolug  ktg  h>,  Mfrd  Si 
Tdvra  jit^?.og  "tay.fiuv,  Kal  E^ijg  Tlapoifiiai.  ^EtTa  'EKK?.^<na(JT!/g  Kal  A.ofa 
'Aa/iaTuv.  Upbg  TovTocg  egtI  koI  Iw/3,  koI  Xoiirbv  Tlpo^Tat,  oi  /ih  dudsKO  ii( 
EV  l3ii3?uov  dpidfiovfiEvot.  'EiTa  Htramf,  Isps/iuag  Kal  avv  avT(^  'Qapol'X,  Opv^^t 
ETtcrro?.?),  Kal  fisf  avTbv  E^EKif/2.  Kal  Aavi^l,  'A,Ypt  tovtuv  to.  Tfjg  iralaiag 
6ia6rjKT/g  loTaTai. — Athanas.  0pp.,  torn.  ii.  p.  38. 


Let.  XVIII.]   KK.\L  TESTIMONY  OF  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH.    723 

their  simplk-ity  and  purity  by  the  ouiininij;  of  some  men, 
and  at  hist  be  led  to  make  use  of  other  books  called  Apoe- 
rifphal,  being  deceived  by  the  similarity  of  their  names, 
Avhich  are  like  those  of  the  true  books.  I  therefore  entreat 
you  to  forbear  if  I  write  to  remind  you  of  what  you  already 
know,*because  it  is  necessary  and  profitable  to  the  Church. 
Xow,  while  I  am  about  to  remind  you  of  these  thinjjs,  to 
excuse  my  undertaking,  I  will  make  use  of  the  example  of 
Luke  the  Evangelist,  saying  also  myself — 'Forasmuch  as 
some  have  taken  in  hand  to  set  forth  writings  called  Apoc- 
ryphal, and  to  write  them  with  the  God-inspired  Scripture 
in  which  we  have  full  confidence,  as  they  who  from  the  first 
Avere  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  Word  delivered 
them  to  the  Fathers,  it  has  seemed  good  to  me,  after  con- 
sulting with  the  true  brethren  and  inquiring  from  the  be- 
ginning, to  set  forth  those  books  which  are  "canonical,  Avhicli 
have  been  handed  down  to  us  and  are  believed  to  be  Divine, 
so  that  every  one  who  has  been  deceived  may  condemn  his 
deceivers,  and  that  he  who  remains  pure  may  rejoice  when 
again  put  in  remembrance  of  these.  All  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  are  two  and  twenty  in  number ;  for,  as  I 
have  heard,  that  is  the  order  and  number  of  the  Hebrew 
letters.  To  name  them,  they  are  as  follows  :  the  first  Gen- 
esis, the  next  Exodus,  then  Leviticus,  after  that  the  Num- 
bers, and  then  Deuteronomy ;  next  to  them  is  Jesus  the 
son  of  Nave,  and  Judges ;  after  that  Ruth  ;  and  again,  the 
next  in  order,  are  the  four  books  of  the  Kingdoms — of 
these  the  first  and  second  are  reckoned  one  book,  and,  in 
like  manner,  the  third  and  fourth  are  one  book;  after  them 
the  first  and  second  of  the  Remains,  or  Chronicles,  are  in 
like  manner  accounted  one  book;  then  the  first  and  second 
of  Esdra-s,  also  reckoned  one  book ;  after  them  the  book  of 
the  Psalms;  then  the  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes  and  the  Song 
of  Songs ;  besides  these  there  is  Job,  and  at  length  the 
Prophets ;  the  twelve  are  reckoned  one  book ;  then  Isaiah 
anfl  Jeremiah,  and  with  him,  Baruch,  the  Lamentations, 
the  Epistle;  and  after  them  Ezekiel  and  Daniel.  Thus  far 
the   books  of  the  Old   Testament.'"      Hnvinsr   iriven   tl^" 


724  ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVIII. 

Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  he  proceeds  :  "  For  the  sake 
of  greater  accuracy,  I  will  add — and  the  addition  is  neces- 
sary— that  there  are  also  other  books  besides  these,  not  in- 
deed admitted  into  the  Canon,  but  ordained  by  the  Fathers 
to  be  read  by  such  as  have  recently  come  over  to  us,  and 
who  wish  to  receive  instruction  in  the  doctrine  of  piety — the 
Wisdom  of  Solomon,  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach,  and  Esther, 
and  Judith,  and  Tobit,  the  Doctrine  of  the  Apostles,  as  it 
is  called,  and  the  Shepherd." 

To  the  same  purport  is  the  account  which  is  given  in  the 
Synopsis  of  Scripture,  which  is  usually  quoted  under  the 
name  of  Athanasius.^  "  All  the  Scripture  of  us  Christians 
is  divinely  inspired.  It  contains  not  indefinite,  but  rather 
determined  and  canonized,  books.  These  belong  to  the  Old 
Testament."  Then  follows  the  same  enumeration  which 
has  just  been  extracted  from  the  Paschal  Epistle.  It  is 
afterwards  added :  "  But  besides  these  there  are  other  books 
of  the  same  Old  Testament,  not  canonical,  but  only  read  by 
(or  to)  the  catechumens.  Such  are  the  Wisdom  of  Solo- 
mon, the  Wisdom  of  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach,  Esther, 
Judith  and  Tobit.     These  are  not  canonical.^' 

The  canonical  book  of  Esther,  though  not  particularly 
numbered  in  these  catalogues,  is  included  under  the  general 
name  of  Ezra.  The  additions  to  it,  however,  are  expressly 
mentioned  and  repudiated;  for  the  Esther  which  is  pro- 
scribed by  name  is  not  the  book  which  the  Jews  received, 
but  the  one  which  opens  with  the  dream  of  Mordecai.  In 
this  Synopsis,  Athanasius  not  only  gives  a  list  of  the  books, 
but  inserts  the  sentence  with  which  each  of  them  begins,  in 

1  Haaa  yQa<pfj  tjhuv  xQtf^'i-avuv  deoTwevardg  ianv,  ovk  aSpicTTa  6e,  a?2a  fta}.?MV 
UQiafiiva  km  Keaavoviajxiva  exei  to.  (ii(iXia.  Kai  iari  ttiq  jiev  naXaidc  diadi/KiK 
ravra.  .  .  .  Exrof  6e  t6v-uv  iiai  Trd?.iv  erega  j3ii3?.ia  T^q  avr^q  TraTiaiac  SiaBijOK. 
bv  Kavovil^Sfieva  fiev,  avayivuano/ieva  Se  fidvov  toiq  KaTTJXovfikvoig  ravra'  ^ooia 
'Lolofiuvroq,  I,o<pia  If/aov  vlov  ^iQcix,  Ba0f/p'  lovdfjO,  TiOfSh.  Toaavra  mi  ra  ftr) 
Kavovil^dfieva,  Tiveg  /livroi  ruv  Tvakaiuv  hgfiKaai  Kavoi'il^eaOai  nag'  ESgdioig 
Ka7  rf/v  Ead^g'  kui  rf/v  fisv  Povd,  fjera  ruv  Kgiruv  hovfikvTjV,  he  tv  fiipiav 
agififieladai^  rfjv  6e  Eadijg  eig  eregov  ev.  Kat  ovru  7rd?jv  eig  iiKom  di'O  avfi'^V^ 
oradai  Tov  agid/uov  rioi'  Kavovi^ofievu>v  Tvag'  avroig  .}i.}7.iuv. — Athan.  0pp.  u., 
pp.  96-98. 


Let.  XVIII.]  REAL  TE.STLMONY  OF  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH.    725 

order  tliat  they  might  be  ca.sily  identified,  and  he  expres.sly 
tells  us  that  the  Esther  which  he  means  eommences  in  the 
manner  Avhioh  ha.s  just  been  specified.  We  are,  therefore,  at 
no  loss  to  determine  what  he  intended  to  condemn  and  repu- 
diate under  the  title  of  Esther.  The  name  of  Baruch  occurs 
in  these  catalogues,  as  it  does  also  in  those  of  Cyril  and  the 
Council  of  Laodicea,  but  it  is  only  a  fuller  expression  for 
the  book  of  Jeremiah.  "  For  Baruch's  name,"  says  Bishop 
Cosin,^  "  is  famous  in  Jeremy,  whose  disciple  and  scribe  lie 
wa.s,  suffering  the  same  persecution  and  banishment  that 
Jeremy  did,  and  publishing  the  same  words  and  prophecies 
that  Jeremy  had  required  him  to  write,  so  that  in  several 
relations  a  great  part  of  the  book  may  be  attributed  to  them 
both.  And  very  probable  it  is  that  for  this  reason  the 
Fathers  that  followed  Origen  did  not  only,  after  his  exam- 
ple, join  the  Lamentations  and  the  Epistle  to  Jeremy,  but 
the  name  of  Baruch  besides,  whereby  they  intended  nothing 
else  (as  by  keeping  themselves  precisely  to  the  number  of 
twenty-tM'O  books  only  is  clear)  than  what  was  inserted  con- 
cerning Baruch  in  the  book  of  Jeremy  itself." 

4.  Hilary,"  bishop  of  Poitiers  in  France,  thus  enume- 
rates the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  which,  he  assures  us, 
according  to  the  tradition  of  the  ancients,  amounted  to 
twenty-two :  "  Five  of  Moses  ;  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun,  the 
sixth ;    Judges  and   Ruth,  the  seventh ;    first   and  second 

'  Vide  Cosin,  Scholast.  Hist.,  p.  59. 

^  Et  ea  causa  est,  ut  in  viginti  diio.s  libros  lex  Testamenti  Veteris  depute- 
tur,  ut  cum  literarum  numero  convenirent.  Qui  ita  secundilm  traditioiies 
vetcrum  deputantur,  ut  Moysi  .sint  libri  quinque;  Jesu  Naue  sextus; 
Judicura  et  Ruth  septimus;  primus  et  secundus  Kegnorum  in  octavum, 
tertius  et  (piartus  in  nonum ;  Paralipomenon  duo  in  decimum  sint,  ser- 
nioncs  dierum.  Ivsdrte  in  undecimnm ;  Liber  Psalmorum  in  dnodeci- 
nuun  ;  Salomonis  I'roverbia,  Kcclesia.ste.s,  Canticum  Canticorum  in  tertium 
decimum,  et  quartum  decimum,  et  quintum  decimum ;  duodecim  autem 
I'rophetse  in  sextum  decimum;  Esaias  deinde  et  Jeremia.s  cum  Lamenta- 
tione  et  Epistola;  sed  et  Daniel,  et  Ezechiel,  et  Job,  et  Hester,  viginti  et 
diuun  librorum  numerura  consumment.  Quibusdam  autem  visum  est, 
additis  Tobia  et  Judith  viginti  quatuor  libros  secundum  numerum  Grse- 
carum  literarum  connumerare. — Hilari,  Prolofjo  in  Paabnos,  §  xv.,  p.  9. 


720  ARGUMENTS    FOR    APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVIII. 

Kings,  the  eighth  ;  third  and  fourth  Kings,  the  ninth ;  two 
books  of  Chronicles,  tlie  tenth  ;  Ezra,  the  eleventh  ;  Psalms, 
the  twelfth  ;  Ecclesiastes  and  Canticles,  the  thirteenth,  four- 
teenth and  fifteenth  ;  the  Twelve  Prophets,  the  sixteenth ; 
then  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah,  together  with  his  Lamentations 
and  his  Epistle ;  Daniel,  and  Ezekiel,  and  Job,  and  Esther 
make  up  the  full  number  of  twenty-two  books." 

5.  Contemporary  with  Athanasius  and  Hilary  was  Cyril, 
bishop  of  Jerusalem,  a  prominent  member  of  the  second 
general  council  of  Constantinople.  His  opinions  of  the 
Canon  may  be  gathered  from  the  following  pa&sage:' 
"  Learn  diligently  from  the  Church  what  are  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  and  what  of  the  Xew,  but  read  me 
none  of  the  Apocryphal ;  for  if  you  do  not  know  the  books 
acknowledged  by  all,  why  do  you  vainly  trouble  yourself 
about  the  disputed  books  ?  Read,  then,  the  Divine  Scrip- 
tures, the  twenty-two  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  which 
have  been  translated  by  the  seventy-two  interpreters.  Of 
the  Law  the  first  are  the  five  books  of  Moses,  then  Jesus 
the  son  of  Nave,  and  the  book  of  Judges  with  Ruth,  which 
is  numbered  t\ie  seventh ;  then  follow  other  historiciil  books, 
the  first  and  second  of  the  Kingdoms  (one  book  according 
to  the  Hebrews) ;  the  third  and  fourth  are  also  one  book ; 
1  <I>i/lo^atef  ETviyvudi  TraQo,  r^f  £KK7.r]alag,  nolai,  fiev  ktcLv  al  r^g  Tza/xuag 
6iaB/]Kr]g  jii^%OL,  Tzbiai  6e  T?jc  Kaivfjg  Kal  fiot  fif/Skv  ruv  cnTOKpvipuv  avaylvuaue. 
0'  yag  to,  ■Kaga  ndaiv  o/xoAoyov/isva  fit/  «(5wf,  rt  n-ept  to,  a/i(j)i^a?i?M/ieva  ra/.a- 
iTugsig  /xaTT/v  •  ' AvayivoxxKE  rag  Oeiag  ygai^ag^  rag  eiKoat  6vo  (iijSXovg  T^g  TvaAaiag 
diadr/KTjg,  Tag  VTro  tuv  ejifiofifjKOVTa  6vo  ig/Lif}vevT(hv  Egfi7fVEv6eiffag,  .  ,  .  rov 
v6[iov  ^lEv^  yag  Eiatv  al  Muaiug  Trgurai  ■kevte  pi/iloi  .  .  .  ef^f  de,  Ir/aovg  vlbg 
Nan^,  Kai  TUV  Kgiruv  fiETO.  TTJg  VoW  (iiliMov  ^lidofiov  agidfiovfiEvov,  tuv  6e 
TioiTTuv  loTogiKuv  (iifHiuv,  -KgoTi]  Kai  SivTega  tuv  'Baai7.eiuv  fiia  nag'  ESgaloig 
EOTi  fii(ilog-  fiia  6e  mi  i]  TgiT-q  kcli  7)  TeragTt/-  ofioiug  Se  nag'  avToig  koi  tuv 
UagalecKO/j.ivuv  i]  ngidTi}  mi  t)  ^EVTtga,  fiia  Tvyxavk  jSt^Xog,  km  tov  Effdga  1) 
ngiyTT]  mi  r)  SsvTEga  fi'ia  XEA.6ytaTai,  dudEKCiTTf  fii!3Aog  7/  Ead^g.  Kai  to.  fih 
laTogim  TavTa.  Td  Se  aToixvg^  rvyxdvEi  itevte'  It)/?,  mi  jSi^Aog  'ta7.fiuv, 
mi  Tlagoifiiaij  ml  EKKlrjaiaaTfjg,  mi  'Au/ua  'AafiaTuv,  enTamifikmTov  lii^Tiov. 
'Enl  f5f  TOVTOtg  to.  irgo^T/Tim  ttevte'  tuv  rfwJsKa  'ngo<pi^Tuv  fi'ta  pifi?.og,  Kai 
B-adiov  fiia,  Kai  IsgEfiiov  fiSTa  Bagovx  mi  Qg/'/vuv  Kcit  £nii7T0?.fjg-  flra  Je^eki^/.' 
Kai  })  TOV  Aavii)?.  EiKOffTti^EVTiga  j3l,3?.og  Tfjc  na?.  SiaO. —  Cyi-il.,  Hierosol.  Oate- 
ches.  iv.,  De  Sac.  Scrip. 


Let.  XVIII.]  REAL  TESTIMONY  OF  PUIMITIVE  CHURCH.    727 

the  first  and  second  of  tlie  Chronicles  arc,  in  like  manner, 
reckoned  as  one  book  by  them  ;  the  first  and  second  of  Ezra 
are  counted  as  one  book.  The  twelfth  is  Esther.  These 
are  the  historical  books.  The  books  written  in  verse  are 
five — Job  and  the  book  of  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes 
and  the  Song  of  Songs — making  the  seventeenth  book. 
After  these  are  the  five  prophetical  books — one  of  the  twelve 
Pro[)hcts,  one  of  Isaiah,  one  of  Jeremiah,  with  Baruch, 
Lamentations  and  an  Epistle;  then  Ezekiel  and  the  book 
of  Daniel,  the  twenty-second  book  of  the  Old  Testament." 
6.  In  the  writings  of  Epiphanius  we  have  no  less  than 
three  catak)gues  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  of 
which,  as  they  are  all  essentially  the  same,  I  shall  trouble  the 
reader  with  only  one  : '  "  Twenty-seven  books  acknowledged 
and  received  into  the  Old  Testament,  which,  according  to 
the  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet,  are  counted  as  twenty- 

^  E'lKoaieTTTa  jSi^XoL  at  gt/Tai  mi  evdiddeToi^  etKoai  de  /cat  6io  Kara  rt/v  tov 
AA(pa^//Tov  Trap'  E,3()dw<f  croixl^iuoiv  agidfiovfievai  ijgnTjvevdTjaav.  KiKoat  yoQ 
KM  6vo  ixovai  aroixiiorv  vor/fiarn.  irtvTE  6e  e'taiv  e^  avruv  6nr?.ovfirva.  rb  yap 
Kd^  Ian  6nr?Mvv,  kuc  to  Mev^,  Kal  to  Now,  mi  to  ^l,  mi  to  altcj).  Aid  mi  al 
pifi'koi  Ka-a  TovTov  tov  rp(5~ov  hmaid'vo  fitv  aptd/novvTai,  iiKoaie-iZTa  de  evqIu- 
KOVTai.  6ia  to  ttevte  e^  avTuv  6nzXova0ai.  I.i'vanTETai  yap  ?}  Fovd  toic  KpiTdtc. 
mi  aQiQfiliTai  ttoq'  'E^^mioi^^iia  flifi?.oc.  ^imaTi-ETai  ij  TiguTt/  tuv  Tiaga'^.EnTO- 
fiivuv  rfj  SsvTEga,  mi  "KiysTai  fiia  (iij32.og.  "LwaizTETOi  f)  izpLTtj  tuv  liaaOriMV 
Ti]  SEVTipa,  mi  "kkyETai  fiia  ^iji/MQ.  'Lvva'KTETai  fj  tqitt/  ry  rerdprT;,  mi  ?JyETai 
fiia  (iij3?-og.  OvTug  yow  c'vyKEivTai  al  ^i(3Xoi  iv  liEVTaTevxoig  TiraQat.  Kal 
/itvovaiv  dUai  ova  vcTEQOVcai'  wf  hvai  Tag  evSiadETOvg  ^i^Xovg  bvTug,  Jit  ire 
/lEV  voftiKag,  TivEatv,  EfoJoi',  Xevitikov^  Apid/tiovg,  Aevt£qov6(iiov.  dvTt/  //  Jlev. 
■raTEVXog  Kcii  !/ 'So/xodEcrin.  Uevte  }«p  (jTixfjQEig,  ?/  tov  lii[i  jiip'kog.  hra  to 
"iralT^Qiov^  Uagot/iiai  "La^MjiuvTog,  'EKK?iT/aiaaT7/g,  'J^ofia  'AafiaTuv.  Eha  aX?.r/ 
JlEVTaTEVXog  rd  Ka2MVfiEva  Fpa^Eta,  Trapd  rlai  6e  Ayi6yga(f>a  }.Ey6fiEva,  aTivd 
EOTiv  ovTug'  iTjaoii  Toii  'Salt/  ^ifiAog.  KgiTuv  fiErd  Tfjg  Poi'd'  'n.apa?^i~ofihuv 
TTqCiTt}  fiETa  Tijg  dEVTEpag,  Baai?.Et<Jv  npuTT/  fiETO.  T^g  TETapTt/g.  avTrj  Tpht]  TIfv. 
TdTEVXog,  "AMrf  IlEVTaTEyxog  to  AuxSEKarrpdip^Tov,  Uadtag,  lEQEutag,  If Cf «/;)/, 
Aavir/T..  Kal  avTT)  7/  Tlpo(j)riTiK7i  TlEVTciTEvxog.  '^EftEivav  6i  &X}.ai  dio,  di-trrt^ 
e'lai  TOV  E(Tf5pa  fila  kui  avTr/  ^MytZoftt^t/,  kqi  &??>/  (iili/.og^  t)  Tf/g  BaOf/p  Ka/fiTui. 
'EnA^pM/aav  ovv  di  EiKoai6vo  jTi,17mi  KUTa  tov  cipiO/ibv  Ti>i>  iiKoat^vo  aToixhuv 
Trap'  Ejiipdiotg.  Al  yap  OTixfjpEig  dio  jiijiAoi  7/  te  tov  lo?.ofiuvTog  7/  UarnpfTog 
?ie}'OfiEv^,  mi  7)  TOV  Irjabv  tov  vlbv  I.tpdx,  Eicydvov  dt  tov  I^ffdi',  tov  mi  t7/v 
^o^iav.  EfipatoTl  ypdfnvTog  f/v  6  i/qovog  ai'Tov  l7/advg  ipfit/vivaag  F?.?.iivtaTi 
typaypEy  Kal  avTai  xC'/^tfioi  /itv  Eiai  Kai  u(j>i?ufioiy  d/.?,'  Eig  dptfl^ov  pr/Tuv  ovit 
dvaflpovTai. — Epipha.  De  Ponderihxis  et  Mens.,  iii.,  iv.,  pp.  lOl,  102. 


728  ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Let.  X^III. 

two,  have  been  interpreted.  For  there  are  twenty-two  let- 
ters among  the  Hebrews,  five  of  which  have  a  double  form ; 
for  Caph  is  double,  so  also  are  Mem  and  Nun  and  Phi  and 
Zade.  But  since  five  letters  among  them  are  doubled,  and 
therefore  there  are  really  twenty-seven  letters,  which  are 
reduced  to  twenty-two,  so  for  this  reason  they  enumerate 
their  books  as  twenty-two,  though  in  reality  twenty-seven; 
for  the  book  of  Ruth  is  joined  to  the  book  of  Judges,  and 
the  two  together  are  counted  as  one  by  the  Hebrews.  The 
first  and  second  Kings  are  also  counted  as  one  book,  and  in  like 
manner  the  third  and  fourth  of  Kings  are  reckoned  as  one. 
And  in  this  way  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
comprehended  in  five  pentateuchs,  with  two  other  books 
not  included  in  these  divisions.  Five  pertain  to  the  Law, 
Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuteronomy.  This 
is  the  pentateuch  in  which  the  Law  is  contained.  Five  are 
poetical,  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  Ecclesiastes 
and  Canticles.  Then  another  pentateuch  embraces  the 
Hagiographa,  Joshua,  Judges  and  Ruth,  first  and  second 
Chronicles,  first  and  second  Kings,  and  third  and  fourth  of 
Kings.  This  is  the  third  pentateuch.  Another  pentateuch 
contains  the  twelve  Prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel  and 
Daniel.  Besides  these  there  remain  the  two  books  of  Ezra, 
which  are  counted  as  one,  and  the  book  of  Esther.  In  this 
way  the  twenty-two  books  are  made  out  according  to  the 
number  of  the  Hebrew  letters.  As  for  those  two  books,  the 
Wisdom  of  Solomon  and  the  Wisdom  of  Jesus  the  son  of 
Sirach,  written  by  the  grandfather  in  Hebrew  and  trans- 
lated by  the  grandson  into  Greek,  they  are  profitable  and 
useful,  but  not  counted  in  the  number  of  the  received  books.' 
7.  The   following  is  the  Canon  of  Gregory  Nazianzeu:' 

1  laropmai  /lev  laac  [ii[iloL  dvoKalSena  Tvoaai, 

IIqut!(TT7/  TtvEGcr^  hr'  E^oih^^  AevivtKdv  ve. 

'Ekelt'  Apidfioi'  eha  Aevteqo^  v6[ioq. 

E7re<r'  Iriabvc  Kai  Kpirai'    Vovd  bySoTj. 

H  6'  EVvaTT}  Sek&tt]  te  jiijiTiOi  wqc'i^eiq  Bamh'/uv, 

Kai  Tlaga/^ECTvofievar.    Eaxnrov  Eai^Qav  E;|;«f. 


Let.  XVIII.]  KKAL  TKSTIMONY  OF  PUIMITIVE  CHURCH.    729 

"There  are  twelve  liistoriciil  books  of  the  most  ancient 
Hebrew  wisdom:  the  first  Genesis;  then  Exodus,  Leviticus, 
Numbers,  Deuteronomy;  the  next  Joshua,  the  Judges,  Ruth, 
the  eighth ;  ninth  and  tentli  the  acts  of  the  Kings,  and  then 
the  Remains,  and  Esdras  the  last.  Then  the  five  books  in 
verse,  tiie  first  Job,  next  David,  then  the  three  books  of 
Solomon,  Ecclesiastes,  the  Song  and  the  Proverbs.  The 
prophetic  books  are  five ;  the  twelve  Prophets  are  one  book, 
Hosea,  Amos,  Micah,  Joel,  Jonah,  Obadiah,  Nahum,  Habak- 
kuk,  Haggai,  Zachariah,  INIalachi,  all  these  make  one  book : 
the  second  is  Isaiah,  then  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel  and  Daniel : 
Mliich  make  twenty-two  books,  according  to  the  number 
of  the  Hebrew  letters." 

8.  To  the  same  i)urport  is  tlie  Poetical  Canon  of  Amphi- 
lochius,  the  intimate  friend  of  Gregory  and  Basil,  given  in 
a  letter  which  he  wrote  to  Zeleuchus,  exhorting  him  to  the 
study  of  piety  and  learning. 

9.  The  testimony  of  Jerome  is  clear,  pointed  and  explicit. 
In  his  famous  Prologus  Galeatus  he  says:^  "The  language 

At  Se  arixvpo-t  Tfvrt,  uv  Trpwrof  /  I(j/9, 

Etteitu  Aavi6'  eha  rgetc  ^o?.ofiuvT£iai, 

E^7c?.7?(T(a(T^7}f, '  A(T//n,  mi  YlaQoifiiai, 

'Kai  TTfvff  6/Joiuc  TTvei/iaTOC  TTpod/jTiKov. 

Miav  fiev  elaiv  eg  ■ypa^r/v"'  ol  duSsKa. 

QoTjE  k"  Afxijg,  kqi  Mf;j;ataf  6  rp'tTog. 

ETrwr"  lu^?..  Iit"  Iuvoq,  A(i6iag, 

Naoi'/z  re,  AjijiaKovfi  re,  Kai  'Zo(^oviag^ 

Ayyaioc,  eha  Zaxapiac,  Ma?Mxtac. 

Mm  fiev  olik.     Aevripa  (T  llaaiag. 

ETrEiO"  6  K?ijdEic  Jepe/iiac  ek  fipi^ovc 

Elr'  E!^EKif/?..  Kai  ^av'irjAov  x^P^C. 

Apxniag  ftiv  idr/Ka  6ro  km  eikooi  (iili^Mvr^ 

To/f  Tuv  Ej^paiibv  ypafifiaaiv  avTidirnvQ. 

Oreg.  Naz.,  0pp.,  torn,  ii.,  p.  98. 
'  Viginti  et  diias  litems  [says  lie  in  the  Prologus  Galeatus]  esse  apud 
Hebra?os,  Syronim  (|Uoque  et  Chaldieoriim  lingua  testator  qua'  Ilebnpos 
magna  est  i)arte  confinis  est.  Nam  et  ipsi  viginti  duo  elementa  habent 
endemsonoseddiversisc'Iiaraoteribus.  .  .  Porro  qui  m  pie  litera'dupl  ices  apud 
Ilebra^ossunt :  ('ajjli,  Mem,  Nun,  l*e,  Sade.  .  .  .  Uiideet  iiiiiiKiiica  iilcrisqiio 
libri  duplices  avtimantiir,  Sainiul,  Malachim,  Dabre  Ilajaniiin,  Ksdras, 
Jeremias  cum  C'iiiotli,  id  est  Lameiitatiduibus  suis.     (^iiomodo  igitiir  vi- 


730  ARGUMENTS   FOU   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVIII. 

of  the  Syrians  and  the  Clialclees  is  a  standing  proof  that 
there  are  two  and  twenty  letters  among  the  Hebrews.  But 
among  the  Hebrews  five  letters  are  double,  Capli,  Mem, 

ginti  duo  elementa  sunt,  per  quse  scribimus  Hebraice  omnequod  loquiniur, 
et  eorum  initiis  vox  humana  comprelienditur :  ita  viginti  duo  voluniina 
supputantur,  quibus  quasi  Uteris  et  exordiis  in  Dei  doctrina,  tenera  adliuc 
et  lactens  viri  justi  eruditur  infantia. 

Primus  apud  eos  liber  vocatnr  Bresilh,  quern  nos  Genesin  dicimus. 
Secundus  Veelle  Semoth.  Tertius  Vajicra,  id  est,  Leviticus.  Quartus 
Vajedabber,  quern  Numeros  vocarnus.  Quintus  Elle  Haddebarim,  qui 
Deuteronomiuni  praenotatur.  Hi  sunt  quinque  libri  Mosis,  quos  proprie 
Thora,  id  est  Legem,  appellant. 

Secundum  Prophetarum  ordinem  faciunt,  et  incipiunt  ab  Jesu  filio 
Nave,  qui  apud  eos  Josue  Ben  Nun  dicitur.  Deinde  subtexunt  Sopketim, 
id  est  Judicum  librum ;  et  in  eundem  compingunt  Eath,  quia  in  diebus 
Judicum  facta  ejus  narratur  historia.  Tertius  sequitur  Samuel,  quem  nos 
Regnorum  primura  et  secundum  dicimus.  Quartus  Malachim,  id  est  Regum 
qui  tertio  et  quarto  Regnorum  voluraine  continetur.  Melius  que  multo 
est  Malacbim,  id  est  Regum,  quam  Malachoth,  id  est  Regnorum  dicere. 
Non  enim  multarum  gentium  regna  describit,  sed  unius  Israelitici  populi, 
qui  tribibus  duodecim  continetur.  Quintus  est  Esaias,  sextus  Jeremias, 
Septimus  Ezechiel,  octavus  liber  duodecim  Propbetarum,  qui  apud  ilos 
vocatur  Thare  Asra. 

Tertius  ordo  Hagiographa  possidet.  Et  primus  liber  incipit  a  Job.  Se- 
cundus a  David,  quem  quinque  incisionibus  et  uno  Psalmorum  vohmiine 
comprehendunt.  Tertius  est  Salomon,  tres  libros  liabcns,  Proverbia,  quae 
illi  Parabolaft,  id  est  Mascdoth,  appellant.  Quartus  Ecclesia.<tes,  id  est  C'ohe- 
leth.  Quintus  Canticum  Canticorum,  quem  titulo  Sir  Hassirim  prsenotant. 
Sextus  est  Daniel,  septimus  Dabre  Hajamim,  id  est,  verba  dierum,  quod 
significantius  Chronicon  totius  divinse  historise  possumus  appellare.  Qui 
liber  apud  nos  Paralipomenon  primus  et  secundus  inscribitur.  Octavus 
Esdras,  qui  et  ipse  similiter  apud  Grsecos  et  Latinos  in  duos  libros  divisus 
est.     Nonus  Esther. 

Atque  ita  fiunt  pariter  veteris  Legis  libri  viginti  duo,  id  est,  Mosis 
quinque,  et  Prophetarum  octo,  Hagiographorum  novem. 

Quanquam  nonnulli  Ruth  et  Cinoth  inter  Hagiographa  scribent,  et  hos 
libros  in  suo  putent  numcro  supputandos,  ac  per  hoc  esse  priscse  Legis  li- 
bros viginti  quatuor 

Hie  Prologus  Scripturarum  quasi  galeatum  principium  omnibus  libris, 
quos  de  Hebrajo  vertimus  in  Latinum,  convenire  potest :  ut  scire  valea- 
mus,  quicquid  extra  hos  est,  inter  Apocrypha  esse  ponendum.  Igitur  Sa- 
pientia,  qure  vulgo  Saloraonis  inscribitur,  et  Jesu  filii  Sirach  liber,  et 
Judith,  et  Tobias,  et  Pastor  non  sunt  in  canone.  Machabreonim  prinuim 
librum  IIei)raicum  reperi.  Secundus  Gra>cus  est,  quod  ex  ipsa  quoque 
phrasi  jirobari  potest. 


jLet.  XVIIL]  real  testimony  of  primitive  church.  731 

Xun,  Pc,  Sade.  Hence,  by  most  men,  five  books  are  eon- 
sidered  as  double;  viz.:  Saniuel,  Malaehini  [Kin^s],  Dabre 
Hajamini  [Chronicles],  Ezra,  Jeremiah  witli  Kincjtii,  that  is, 
the  Lamentations.  Therefore,  as  there  are  twenty-two  let- 
ters, so  twenty-two  volumes  are  reckoned.  The  first  book 
is  called  by  them  Bresith,  by  us  Genesis ;  the  second  is 
called  Exodus;  the  third,  Leviticus;  the  fourth,  Numbers; 
the  fifth,  Deuteronomy.  These  are  the  five  books  of  Moses, 
which  they  call  Thora,  the  Law.  The  second  class  contains 
the  Prophets,  which  they  begin  with  the  book  of  Joshua, 
the  sou  of  Nun.  The  next  is  the  book  of  the  Judges,  with 
Avhich  they  join  Ruth,  her  history  hapijcning  in  the  time 
of  the  Judges.  The  third  is  Sanuicl,  which  we  call  the  first 
and  second  book  of  the  Kingdoms.  The  fourth  is  the  book 
of  the  Kings,  or  the  third  and  fourth  book  of  the  King- 
doms, or  rather  of  the  Kings ;  for  they  do  not  contain  the 
history  of  many  nations,  but  of  the  people  of  Israel  only — 
consisting  of  twelve  tribes.  The  fifth  is  Isaiah ;  the  sixth, 
Jeremiah ;  the  seventh,  Ezekiel ;  the  eighth,  the  book  of 
the  twelve  Prophets.  The  third  class  is  that  of  Hagio- 
grapha,  or  sacred  writings :  the  first  of  which  is  Jol) ;  the 
second,  David,  of  which  they  make  one  volume,  called  the 
Psalms,  divided  into  five  parts ;  the  third  is  Solomon,  of 
which  there  are  three  books,  the  Proverbs — or  Parables,  as 
they  call  them — the  Ecclesiastes  and  the  Song  of  Songs ; 
the  sixth  is  Daniel ;  the  seventh  is  the  Chronicles,  consisting 
with  us  of  two  books,  called  the  first  and  stscond  of  the  Re- 
mains ;  the  eighth  is  Ezra,  which  among  the  Greeks  and 
]^atins  makes  two  books ;  the  ninth  is  Esther.  Thus  there 
arc  in  all  two  and  twenty  books  of  the  old  Law;  that  is, 
five  books  of  ]\Ioses,  eight  of  the  Prophets  and  nine  of  the 
ITagiographa.  But  some  reckon  Ruth  and  the  Lamenta- 
tions among  the  Hagiograi)ha ;  so  there  will  be  four  and 
twenty.  This  prologue  I  write  as  a  hclmeted  prefiice  to  all 
the  books  to  be  translated  l)y  me  from  the  Hebrew  into  Latin, 
that  we  may  know  that  all  the  books  which  are  not  of  this 
iiunibcr  are  to  be  reckoned  Apncryphal  ;  thcrcfon",  Wisdom, 


732  ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVIII. 

which  is  commonly  called  Solomon's,  and  the  book  of  Jesus 
the  son  of  Sirach,  and  Judith,  and  Tobit,  and  the  Sliepherd, 
are  not  in  the  Canon.  The  first  book  of  Maccabees  I  have 
found  in  Hebrew ;  the  second  is  Greek,  as  is  evident  from 
the  style."  ^Ye  have  two  other  catalogues  furnished  l)y 
Jerome — one  in  the  Bibliotheca  Divina,  and  tlie  other  in  a 
letter  to  Paulinus — both  exactly  according  with  this. 

To  these  testimonies  may  be  added  a  passage  which  oc- 
curs in  the  preface  to  his  translations  of  the  books  of  Sol- 
omon.^ "  I  have  translated,"  says  he,  "  the  three  books  of 
Solomon,  that  is,  the  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes  and  Canticles, 
from  the  ancient  version  of  the  Seventy.  As  for  the  book 
called  by  many  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  and  Ecclesiasticus, 
which  all  know  to  be  written  by  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach,  I 
have  foreborne  to  translate  them ;  for  it  was  my  intention 
to  send  you  a  correct  edition  of  the  canonical  Scriptures, 
and  not  to  bestow  labour  upon  others."  In  the  Prologue  to 
his  translation  of  Jeremiah,  he  says  ^  he  "  does  not  translate 
the  book  of  Baruch,  because  it  was  neither  in  the  Hebrew 
nor  received  by  the  Jews."  He  also  condemns  the  Apocry- 
phal additions  to  Daniel  as  not  found  in  the  Hebrew,  and 
as  having  exposed  Christians  to  ridicule  for  the  respect 
Avhich  they  paid  to  them.^     Although  he  translated  Tobit 

1  Tres  libros  Salomonis,  id  est,  Proverbia,  Ecclesiasten,  Canticuni  Canti- 

coriini,  veteri  Septuaginta  interpretum  auctoritate  reddidi Porro 

in  eo  libro,  qui  a  plerii5qiie  Sapientia  Salomonis  inscribitur,  et  in  Eccle- 
siastico,  quern  esse  Jesu  filii  Sirach  nullus  ignorat,  calamo  temperavi; 
tantummodo  canonicas  Scripturas  vobis  emendare  desiderans,  et  studium 
meum  certis  raagis  quam  dubiis  commendare. — Fr.  in  Libr.  Salom.,  juxta 
Septung.  Interp.,  t.  i.,  p.  1419. 

'^  Librum  autem  Baruch,  notarii  ejus,  qui  apud  Hebrseos  nee  legitur,  nee 
habetur,  prsetermisimus. — Prol.  in  Jerem.,  t.  i.,  p.  554. 

^  Hsec  idcirco,  ut  difficultatem  vobis  Danielis  ostenderem  ;  qui  apud  He- 
br»os  nee  Susannse  habet  historiam,  nee  Hymnum  Trium  Pnerorum,  nee 
Bells  Draconisqne  fabulas ;  quas  nos,  quia  in  toto  orbe  disperstie  sunt,  vernm 
t  anteposito  easque  jugulante,  subjecimus;  ne  videremur  apud  iniperitos 
magnam  partem  voluminis  detruncasse.  Audivi  ego  quemdam  de  pne- 
ceptoribus  .Tudseorum,  quum  Susannae  derideret  historiam,  et  a  Gnwo 
nescio  quo  diceret  esse  confictam :  illud  opponere  quod  Origeni  quoijue 
Africanup  opposuit,  etymologias  has,  a-o  roc  axiynv  (rxlmii,  ml  a-b  rdv-fi:- 


Let.  XVIII.]    real  TESTIMONY  OF  riJlMITlVE  t'lll'RCH.    733 

and  Judith  iVoni  C'lialdt'O  into  Latin,  yet  he  })nnioiinces 
each  of  them  to  be  Apoervplial.  Wisdom,  Ecelesiiisticus 
and  ^Maccabees  he  never  tran.slated  at  all. 

It  is  perli'ctly  plain  from  these  testimonies  that  Jerome 
acknowledged  no  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament  to  be 
inspired  but  those  which  were  received  by  the  Jews;  and 
it  deserves  to  be  remarked  that  he  characterized  the  Hebrew 
Canon  as  emphatically  the  "Canon  of  Hebrew  verity."  It 
alone  was  the  infallible  testimony  of  truth. 

The  testimony  of  Jerome  is  felt  to  be  so  iniixirtant  and 
conclusive  that  Romanists  have  resorted  to  various  expe- 
dients for  the  purpose  of  obviating  its  force.  In  the  first 
place,  it  has  been  contended  that  he  was  not  treating  of  the 
Canon  of  the  Christian  Church,  nor  of  the  books  which,  in 
his  own  opinion,  ought  to  be  received  as  inspired,  but  oidy 
of  those  which  the  Jews  acknowledged.  This  objection, 
however,  is  so  plainly  inconsistent  with  the  language  which 
Jerome  employs,  that  Bellarmine,  too  wise  to  defend  it, 
frankly  confesses  that  it  is  utterly  without  foundation.  It 
is  amazing  how  Cocceius,  Catharinus  and  Cauus  could 
gravely  have  proposed  an  explanation  of  this  sort,  when  it 
was  clearly  written  before  them  that  "the  Church  reads  arnih. 
and  such  books,  but  does  not  receive  them  as  canonicaV^ 

Cardinal  Perron,  who  admits,  however,  that  Jerome  was 
treating  of  the  Christian  Canon,  resorts  to  a  solution  so 
exceedingly  ridiculous  that  one  cannot  but  conjecture  that 
the  cardinal  himself  was  labouring  under  just  the  opposite 
infirmity.  In  his  opinion,  Jerome  had  not  reached,  Avhcn 
he  wrote  his  memorable  Prologue,  the  ripeness  of  his  studies. 
It  is  hard  to  fix  any  precise  and  definite  period  for  the  de- 
velopment and  maturity  of  the  intellectual  powers.     But  to 

vov  TZQiaai,  de  Graeco  serraone  descendere Deinde  tantiim  fuisse 

otii  tribus  pueris  cavillabatiir,  lit  in  caraino  a?stuantis  incendii  metro 
luderent,  ct  per  ordinein  et  huidem  Dei  omnia  elementa  provocareiit: 
aut  qiind  miraciiliim  diviiiaHpie  aspirationis  indifiiim,  vel  draconcm  in- 
terfectum  offii  pieis,  vel  sacerdotum  Belis  macliina.s  (Uprolieiriaa?  Quie 
magis  j)rudentia  solertes  viri  quam  projjlietati  spiritu  perpetrata? — Pra-f, 
in  Dan.,  t.  i.,  p.  089. 


734  ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVIII 

be  an  infant  at  fifty — and  such  was  the  a^e,  according  to 
tlie  lowest  calculation,  which  the  venerable  Father  had  then 
attained  ' — is  an  infirmity  so  closely  approximating  to  ab- 
solute idiocy,  that  the  cardinal,  I  ap})rehend,  will  find  it 
much  more  easy  to  convince  his  readers  that  he  himself 
was  on  the  borders  of  dotage  than  that  the  author  of  such  a 
composition  as  the  Prologus  Galeatus  was  either  a  victim  of 
imbecility  of  mind  or  the  extravagance  and  rashness  of  youth. 

It  has  also  been  attempted  to  destroy  the  force  of  this 
testimony  by  asserting  that  he  rejected  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  This,  however,  is  so  far  from  being  true  that  he 
actually  cites  the  Epistle  under  the  name  of  Paul,  and  dis- 
tinctly declares  that  he  received  it  as  authentic.^  He  says, 
to  be  sure,  that  others  doubted  of  it,  but  that  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  calling  it  into  question  himself. 

It  is  finally  contended  that  he  subsequently  changed  his 
opinions.  But  of  this  fact  no  evidence  can  be  produced. 
'The  Jesuits,  indeed,  tell  us  that  in  his  Apology  against 
Ruffin  he  retracted  the  censure  which  he  had  formerly  pro- 
nounced upon  the  spurious  additions  to  Daniel ;  that  in  his 
Preface  to  Tobit  he  impugns  the  integrity  of  the  Hebrew 
Canon  ;  in  his  Preface  to  Judith  and  his  exposition  of  the 
Psalms  he  revokes  what  he  had  said  of  the  book  of  Judith ; 
and  in  his  commentary  upon  Isaiah  retracts  his  assertions 
in  relation  1x)  the  Maccabees.  Such  are  the  grounds  upon 
which  it  is  contended  he  changed  his  opinions.  It  would 
be  very  easy,  by  a  particular  examination  of  the  passages 
which  are  cited,  to  show  that  there  is  no  foundation  what- 
ever for  any  of  these  assumptions. 

In  reference  to  the  Apocrypiial  additions  to  Daniel,  Ruf- 
finus  was  as  far  from  admitting  their  inspiration  as  Jerome 
himself.     He  could  not,  therefore,  with  the  least  degree  of 

1  Jerome  wrote  his  Prologue  about  the  year  392.  He  was  born,  accord- 
ing to  Baronius,  about  the  year  340 :  according  to  others,  he  was  born  still 
earlier. 

^  Hatic  Epistolain  .  .  .  ab  omnibus  .  .  .  quasi  Pauli  Apostoli  siiscipi 
.  .  .  Apocalypsin  .  .  .  et  tamen  nos  utramque  suscipimus. — Epid.  ad 
Dardunum. 


Let.  XVIIL]  REAL  TK8TLMOXY  OF  I'ULMmVL  CHURCH.    735 

propriety  or  consistency,  censure  his  iornier  friend  for  opin- 
ions which  tliey  held  in  common.  But  Jerome  was  under- 
stood to  say,  in  his  Preface  to  Daniel,  that  the  stories  of 
Susannah  and  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon  were  mere  fabulous 
narrations.  This  is  what  he  explains  in  his  Apology  against 
Rufiinus.^  He  asserts  that  he  had  been  misunderstood,  and 
that  when  he  used  such  language  in  reference  to  these  tales 
he  was  not  giving  his  own  opinion  of  their  value,  but  the 
sentiments  of  the  Jews.  He  was  willing  to  admit  that  they 
might  be  usefully  and  profitably  read,  but  so  far  Avas  he 
from  subscribing  to  their  Divine  inspiration  that  he  reite- 
rates the  approbation  which  he  had  formerly  given  of  the 
Re})ly  of  Origen  to  Porphyry,  who  had  quoted  these  works 
— "that  they  were  not  possessed  of  the  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  therefore  Christians  were  not  bound  to  defend 
them."  There  is,  consequently,  but  one  principle  on  which 
Jerome  can  be  made  to  endorse  the  claims  of  these  wretched 
fictions,  and  that  is,  whatever  he  did  not  believe  to  be  fab- 
ulous he  must  have  believed  to  be  inspired ! 

In  his  Preface  to  Tobit  there  is  no  retraction  whatever. 
He  simply  states  that  he  had  yielded  to  the  desire  of  the 
bishops  M-ho  had  urged  him  to  translate  it,  although  in  so 
doing  he  was  aware  that  he  had  exposed  himself  to  the  re- 
proach of  the  Jews.  He  adds,  however,  that  he  judged  it 
better  to  displease  the  Pharisees  than  to  disregard  the  in- 
junctions of  the  bishops.^  But  surely  to  translate  a  book 
— a  book  which  was  allowed  to  be  read  in  the  Church,  and 
was  commended  as  rf  fit  introduction  to  piety  (for  so  many 
of  the  ancients  regarded  it) — does  not  necessarily  imply  that 
it  was  held  to  be  inspired.  And  yet  Jerome's  expressions 
of  willingness  to  displease  the  Jews,  and  to  translate  Tobit 
at  the  earnest  request  of  his  friends,  is  all  the  proof  upon 
which  it  is  asserted  that  he  changed  his  mind  in  regard  to 
it.  I  pay  no  attention  to  the  obviously-corrupted  jiassage 
in  which  he  represents  the  Jews  as  ranking  this  book  in 
the  class  of  Hagiographa.  The  word  ILu/ior/rnpha  is  an 
'  Ai>ol.  '1  ;i(lvs.  Kudin.  '  Pra-fat.  in  Tohiaiu. 


736  ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVIII. 

evident  mistake  of  the  copyist  for  Apocrypha ;  and  so  the 
ablest  doctors  among  the  Ilomanists  themselves  have  agreed.^ 
The  glaring  falsehood  of  the  assertion  upon  any  other  sup- 
position is  enough  to  show  that  the  text  is  vitiated. 

So,  again,  it  is  contended  that  he  changed  his  opinion  in 
reference  to  Judith,  because  he  yielded  to  the  entreaty  of 
his  friends  and  consented  to  translate  it.  He  was  the  more 
induced  to  do  so  because  the  book  itself  presented  an  emi- 
nent example  of  chastity,  and  was  suited  to  edify  the  people, 
and  because  the  story  went  that  the  Council  of  Nice  had 
inserted  it  in  the  Canon.^  On  these  grounds  he  translated 
the  work,  but  not  a  hint  does  he  drop  that  he  received  it  as 
inspired.  We  may  therefore  conclude  in  the  words  of 
Bishop  Cosin :  "  And  thus  have  we  made  it  to  appear  that 
St.  Jerome  was  always  constant  herein  to  himself.  For  in 
the  year  392  he  avowed  his  translation  of  the  Bible,  before 
which  he  placed  his  Prologus  Galeatus,  as  a  helmet  of  de- 
fence against  the  introduction  of  any  other  books  that  should 
pretend  to  be  of  equal  authority  with  it.  Not  many  years 
after  he  wrote  his  Preface  upon  Tobit  and  Judith,  and 
therein  he  changed  not  his  mind.  About  the  same  time  he 
wrote  his  Commentary  upon  the  Prophet  Haggai  and  his 
Epistle  to  Turia,  wherein  the  book  of  Judith  remaineth 
uncanonized.  In  the  year  396  he  wrote  his  Epistle  to  L»ta, 
and  therein  he  is  still  constant  to  his  Prologue.  About  the 
same  year  he  wrote  upon  the  Prophet  Jonas,  where  the 
book  of  Tobit  is  kept  out  of  the  Canon.  In  the  year  400 
(or  somcAvhat  after)  he  wrote  upon  Daniel,  and  there  Susan- 
nah, Bel  and  the  Dragon  have  no  authority  of  Divine 
Scripture.  And  at  the  same  time  he  wrote  his  Apologie 
against  Ruffin,  where  he  referreth  to  his  former  Prologues, 
and  expressly  denieth  any  retraction  of  them.  About  the 
year  409  he  wrote  upon  Esay,  where  he  revoketh  nothing. 
And  in  the  latter  end  of  his  age  he  set  forth  his  Comment- 

*  Comestor,  Hugo  the  Cardinal,  Tortatus,  Driedo,  Catliarin,  have  all 
pronounced  it  to  be  a  corrupt  reading.    See  also  note  to  Prafat.  in  Tobiara. 
^  Prsefat.  in  Judith. 


Let.  XVIII.]  REAL  TESTIMONY  OF  PRIMITIVE  CPIURCH.    737 

ary  upon  Ezechiel,  wherein  lie  acknowledged  no  more  books 
oi'  the  Old  Testament  than  he  had  counted  before,  but  con- 
tinued his  belief  and  judgment  herein  to  the  day  of  his 
death,  which  followed  not  long  after." 

10.  I  shall  next  give  the  testimony  of  Ruffinus,*  once  the 
beloved  friend,  and  afterwards  the  open  and  avowed  adver- 
sary, of  Jerome.  In  his  Exposition  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  he 
says :  "  This,  then,  is  the  Holy  Spirit  who  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament inspired  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  and  in  the  New 
the  Gospels  and  Epistles.  Wherefore  the  Apostle  says  that 
'  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profit- 
able for  doctrine.'  It  will  not,  therefore,  be  improper  to 
'  Ilic  igitur  Spiritus  Sanctus  est,  qui  in  veteri  Testamento  Legem  et 
Prophetas,  in  novo  Evangelia  et  Apostolos  inspiravit.  Unde  ApostoluB 
dicit:  oranis  Scriptura  divinitus  inspirata  utilis  est  ad  docendum.  Et 
ideo  quae  sunt  novi  ac  veteris  Testatamenti  volumina,  quae  secundum 
majorum  traditionem  per  ipsum  Spiritum  Sanctum  inspirata  creduntur, 
et  ecclesiis  Christi  tradita,  competens  videtur  hoc  in  loco  evidenti  numero, 
sicut  ex  patrum  monumentis  acccpimus  designare.  Itaque  veteris  Testa- 
menti,  omnium  primo  Moysi  quinque  libri  sunt  traditi,  Genesis,  Exodus, 
Leviticus,  Ntunerus,  Deuteronomium.  Post  h?ec  Jesus  Nave ;  Judicum, 
simul  cum  Kuth.  Quatuor  post  haec  Eegnorum  libri,  quos  IIebra?i  duos 
numerant.  Paralipomena,  qui  Dierum  dicitur  Liber,  et  Esdrse  duo,  quia 
apud  illos  singuli  computantur,  et  Hester.  Prophetarum  vero  Isaias, 
Jeremias,  Ezechiel,  et  Daniel,  preterea  duodecim  Prophetarum,  liber  unus. 
Job  quoque,  et  Psalmi  David  singuli  sunt  libri.  Salomon  vero  tres 
ecclesiis  tradidit,  Proverbia,  Ecclcsiasten,  Cantica  Canticorum.  In  his 
concluserunt  numerum  librorum  veteris  Testamenti.  .  .  .  Sciendum  tamen 
est,  quod  et  alii  libri  sunt,  qui  non  sunt  canonici,  sed  ecclesiastici  a  major- 
ibus  appellati  sunt;  id  est  Sapientia  quae  dicitur  Salomonis,  et  alia 
Sapientia,  quae  dicitur  filii  Sirach,  qui  liber  apud  Latinos,  hoc  ipso  gene- 
ral! vocabulo,  Ecclesiasticm  appellatur,  quo  vocabulo  non  autor  libelli, 
sed  scriptura?  qualitas  cognominata  est,  ejusdem  vero  ordinis  libellus  est 
Tobia;,  et  Judith,  et  Macliabaeorum  libri.  In  novo  vero  Testamento  libel- 
lus qui  dicitur  Pastoris  sive  Hermes,  qui  appellatur  Ducb  Via',  vel  Judi- 
cium Petri.  Quae  omnia  legi  quidem  in  ecclesiis  voluerunt,  non  tamen 
proferi  ad  auctoritatem  ex  his  fidei  confirmandam.  Caetera-s  vero  scriptu- 
ras  apocrypha.s  nominarunt  quas  in  ecclesiis  legi  noluerunt.  Haec  nobis  a 
patribus  tradita  sunt  qua?  ut  dixi,  opportunum  visum  est  hoc  in  loco  desig- 
nare, ad  instructionem  eorum,  qui  prima  sibi  ecclesiae  ac  fidei  clcmenta 
suscipiunt,  ut  sciant  ex  quibus  sibi  fontibus  verbi  Dei  haurienda  sint 
pocula. — Ruffiti.  in  Symb.  ap.  Ci/prian,  in  App.,  pp.  20,  27,  et  ap.  Hier., 
torn,  v.,  pp.  141,  142. 
Vol.  III.— 47 


738  ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVIII, 

enumerate  here  the  books  of  the  Xew  and  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, which  we  find  by  the  monuments  of  the  Fathers  to 
have  been  delivered  to  the  churches  as  inspired  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  And  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  first  place,  are 
the  five  books  of  Moses :  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  ]S"um- 
bers,  Deuteronomy.  After  these  are  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun, 
and  the  Judges,  together  with  Kuth.  Xext,  the  four  books 
of  the  Kingdoms  (which  the  Hebrews  reckon  two),  the 
book  of  the  Remains,  which  is  called  the  Chronicles,  and 
two  books  of  Ezra,  which  by  them  are  reckoned  one,  and 
Esther.  The  Prophets  are  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel  and 
Daniel,  and  besides  one  book  of  the  twelve  Prophets.  Job 
also  and  the  Psalms  of  David.  Solomon  has  left  three 
books  to  the  Church :  the  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes  and  the 
Song  of  Songs ;  with  these  they  conclude  the  number  of  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  .  .  .  However,  it  ought  to  be 
observed  that  there  are  also  other  books  which  are  not 
canonical,  but  have  been  called  by  our  forefiithers  ecclesias- 
tical, as  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  and  another  which  is 
called  the  Wisdom  of  the  son  of  Sirach,  and  among  the 
Latins  is  called  by  the  general  name  of  .Ecclesiasticus.  By 
which  title  is  denoted  not  the  author  of  the  book,  but  the 
quality  of  the  writing.  In  the  same  rank  is  the  book  of 
Tobit  and  the  books  of  the  Maccabees.  In  the  New  Tes- 
tament is  the  book  of  the  Shepherd  or  of  Hermas,  which  is 
called  the  Two  Ways  or  the  Judgment  of  Peter.  All  which 
they  would  have  to  be  read  in  the  churches,  but  not  to  be 
alleged  by  way  of  authority  for  proving  articles  of  faith. 
Other  Scriptures  they  called  Apocryphal,  which  they  would 
not  have  to  be  read  in  the  churches." 

11.  I  shall  close  this  list  of  testimonies  with  the  Cauon 
of  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  which  was  afterwards  confirmed 
at  Constantinople  in  the  close  of  the  seventh  century.  The 
closing  decrees  are  in  these  words  :  ^  "  Private  Psalms  should 

'  On  ov  6h  ISiuTiKoi'C  ijiaT^fiovc  Myeadai  ev  rfj  'cKKT^rjaiq^  bvde  aKavoviff-a  ^l^ha, 
aXka  nova  ra  KavoviKO.  rsyf  KaLvijg  Kal  iraXatag  diadiiarjg. 

Oaa  del  ^i^lia  avayiv6aKEcdai  r?/f  Ka?Mtag  diad/jKr/g-  a'  Tivemg  Kdafiov.  /?' 


Lkt.  XVIII.]  PvEAL  TESTIMONY  OF  PRlMriTVE  ClIURCJI.    739 

not  be  read  in  the  Chuirh,  nor  any  books  which  are  not 
canonical,  but  only  the  canonical  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament.  The  books  of  the  Old  Testament  which  ouirht 
to  be  v&dd  are  these:  1,  The  Genesis  or  generation  of  the 
AA'orld ;  2,  The  Exodus  out  of  Egypt ;  3,  I^eviticus ; 
4,  Numbers ;  5,  Deuteronomy ;  6,  Joshua  the  son  of  Xun  ; 
7,  Judges,  with  Ruth;  8,  Esther;  9,  The  first  and  second 
books  of  Kings;  10,  The  third  and  fourth  books  of  Kings  ; 
11,  The  first  and  second  books  of  Chronicles;  12,  The  first 
and  second  books  of  Esdras ;  13,  The  book  of  150  Psalms; 
14,  The  Proverbs  of  Solomon  ;  15,  The  Ecclesiastcs ;  16, 
The  Song  of  Songs;  17,  Job;  18,  The  twelve  Prophets; 
19,  Isaiah;  20,  Jeremiah  and  Baruch,  the  Lamentations 
and  Epistle;  21,  Ezekiel;  22,  Daniel." 

The  only  serious  exception  which  can  be  taken  to  the 
testimony  of  this  council  is  the  fact  that  in  the  Canon  of 
the  New  Testament  the  Apocalypse  of  John  is  omitted. 
There  are  three  hypotheses  upon  which  this  difficulty  may 
be  removed,  each  of  which  is  fatal  to  the  inspiration  of  the 
books  in  question. 

In  the  first  place,  it  might  have  been  the  design  of  the 
Fathers  simply  to  prescribe  the  books  which  should  be 
read,  and  as  the  Apocalypse  was  of  an  abstruse  and  mystical 
character,  they  might  have  thought  it  expedient  to  leave  it 
out  in  the  public  services  of  the  Church.  But  no  such 
objections  could  have  been  alleged  against  \\'^isdom,  Eccle- 
siasticus  and  Maccabees.  These  books  were  held  to  be 
eminently  useful,  and  specially  adapted  to  the  instruction 
and  improvement  of  recent  converts.  Their  omission, 
therefore,  cannot  be  explained  upon  the  same  principle  with 
the  omission  of  the  Apocalypse.     Why,  tlien,  were  they  not 

V.^fM^or  t^  A'lyv-rov.  y'  x\.evi-iK6v.  (V  A()idfiiti.  e'  AevreQov6/iiov.  r'  Ji/aovr 
Nai7/.  C'  Kptrdt,  Poi'O.  7}'  EaOi/Q.  d'  BamXeiuv  a  koi  fi'.  t'  "BaaO.eiiJv  y'  iV,  id 
UaQalenrSfiEva  a',  /?'.  ifi',  EaAiiac  a  koi  /?'.  ly'  /?«'/3/<of  ^alfiuv.  tS'  Ua(}Oiftlat 
SoP.owfcfvrof.  t£'  EKK?7fGiaori/c.  «f'  'Aa/ia  'J^a^iaruv.  iC,'  160.  itj'  Sii^em  npo^//ra*. 
lO'  Jlaninr,  k'  leQeulag,  Kai  Bapoi'j,  Oqt/voi  ml  EmaTO?Mi.  Ka'  lei^eKhj}..  KJi' 
Aavif/?.. — Caiion  of  the  Council  of  Laodicea ;  Labheus  el  Cossart,  torn,  i., 
p.  1507, 


740  ARGUMENTS    FOR   APOCRYPHA    DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVIII. 

admitted  into  the  Canon  ?  But  one  answer  can  be  jjiven, 
and  that  is,  They  were  not  canonical.  Though,  upon  this 
hypothesis,  the  decree  of  Laodicea  did  not  require  all  canon- 
ical books  to  be  read,  yet  it  permitted  none  to  be  used  which 
were  not  canonical. 

In  the  second  place,  the  Fathers  might  not  have  been 
satisfied  that  the  Apocalypse  was  really  the  work  of  John. 
It  was  the  last  of  the  sacred  books,  and  the  evidences  of 
its  inspiration  might  not  have  been  fully  known  to  the 
bishops  at  Laodicea.  The  primitive  Christians  guarded 
the  Scriptures  w^ith  diligence  and  care,  and  were  willing  to 
admit  no  book  into  the  Canon  of  inspiration  until  they 
had  thor-oughly  examined  its  credentials.  This  very  cau- 
tion give?  us  greater  confidence  in  their  opinions,  as  it  is  a 
strong  security  that  nothing  was  done  rashly  or  without 
adequate  foundation.  But  if  the  Apocrj^ha  had  been 
delivered  by  Christ  and  His  Apostles  to  the  Christian 
Church  as  inspired  compositions,  the  evidence  of  the  fact 
must  have  been  as  extensive  as  the  Gospel  itself.  To  doubt 
of  them,  therefore,  is  to  condemn  them.  If  the  evidence 
of  their  inspiration  was  unknown  in  the  middle  of  the 
fourth  century,  it  must  for  ever  remain  in  obscurity.  The 
authors  of  the  books  had  been  dead  for  centuries,  their 
names  and  memorials  had  vanished  from  the  earth ;  there 
was  no  possibility  of  directly  proving  that  they  had  cx)n- 
firmed  their  commission  by  signs  and  wonders.  The  only 
evidence  which  the  Church  coidd  enjoy  was  the  testimony 
of  men  who  Avere  known  to  be  inspired,  and  the  only  men 
to  whom  they  could  appeal  were  the  Apostles  of  Christ ; 
and  if  for  four  centuries  no  traces  are  found  of  any  testi- 
mony borne  by  those  chosen  heralds  of  the  truth  to  the 
Divine  authority  of  these  books,  their  claims  must  be  aban- 
doned as  totally  incapable  of  proof. 

The  Revelation  of  John  and  the  Apocryphal  books  did 
not  stand  upon  the  same  footing.  There  were  abundant 
means  of  proving  that  the  one  was  written  by  the  disciple 
Nvhom  Jesus  loved,  while  there  were  no  means  whatever  of 


Let.  XVIIL]  KEAL  TESTIMONY  OF  PKIMITIVE  CHURCH.    741 

attesting  the  other  to  be  tlie  M'onl  of  iiod.  The  Fathers, 
therefore,  might  Iiave  been  subsequently  satisfied  in  refer- 
enee  to  the  one,  whieh  they  never  eoukl  have  been  in  refer- 
enee  to  the  other. 

Finally,  the  Apoealypse  may  have  been  omitted  in  tran- 
scribing the  Canon  by  the  negligence  of  copyists.  This  I 
take  to  be  the  true  solution  of  the  difficulty.  In  some  edi- 
tions, the  Epistle  to  Philemon  is  left  out  and  in  others  in- 
serted. But  it  would  have  been  an  extraordinary  blunder 
to  have  omitted  through  mistake  such  a  collection  of  books 
as  those  which  compose  the  Apocrypha.  Whichever,  there- 
fore, of  these  hypotheses  we  may  choose  to  adopt  to  explain 
the  difficulty  in  reference  to  Revelation,  the  Apocrypha  must 
be  rejected. 

The  testimony  of  the  Christian  Church  for  four  hundred 
years  has  now  been  briefly  reviewed,  and  we  find  an  univer- 
sal concurrence  in  the  Canon  of  the  Jews.  Xorth  and  south, 
east  and  west,  in  Europe,  Asia  and  Africa,  the  most  learned 
and  distinguished  defenders  of  the  faith,  however  widely 
they  difi'ered  or  warmly  disputed  upon  other  points,  are  cor- 
dially at  one  whenever  they  treat  of  the  documents  which 
constitute  the  Rule  of  Faith.  In  all  their  catalogues  the 
Apocrypha  arc  excluded ;  and  in  some  instances  it  is  ex- 
pressly added  that  they  were  not  to  be  received,  as  Trent 
assures  us  they  should  be,  with  the  same  piety  and  venera- 
tion which  are  due  to  the  Law,  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms, 
How,  if  Christ  and  His  Apostles  had  delivered  these  books 
to  the  Christian  Church  as  insi)ired  and  authoritative  re- 
cords— how  can  we  explain  the  amazing  unanimity  of  the 
j)rimitive  Fathers  in  rejecting  them  from  the  sacred  Canon? 
How  comes  it  that  in  no  quarter  of  the  earth  such  injunc- 
tions of  Apostles  were  respected,  but  that  even  in  the 
churches  which  liad  been  planted  by  their  hand  and  be- 
dewed by  their  blood,  in  sixty  years  after  the  last  of  their 
number  had  retired  to  his  long  repose,  these  books  were  ex- 
cluded from  a  place  in  the  list  of  inspirtnl  compositions? 
The  fact  is  utterly  inex])licablc  ;  and   if  with  the  mass  of 


742  ARGUMENTS   FOR   APOCRYPHA   DISCUSSED.  [Let.  XVIII. 

historical  testimony  which  has  ah'eady  been  arrayed  against 
their  pretensions  to  Divine  authority,  they  are  after  all  a 
veritable  part  of  the  Word  of  God,  truth  and  fiction  are 
confounded,  moral  reasoning  is  at  an  end,  and  all  respou- 
sibility  for  conduct  or  opinions  must  for  ever  cease. 

In  the  first  place,  they  were  confessedly  rejected  by  the 
Jewish  Church.  The  writers  themselves  were  Jews;  and 
if  they  had  been  able  to  attest  their  inspiration  by  signs  and 
wonders  and  mighty  works — the  only  credentials  of  a  mes- 
senger from  heaven — their  own  nation  must  have  known 
the  fact.  Yet  the  Jews  with  one  voice  repudiate  these 
books.  In  the  next  place,  they  were  rejected  by  the  Son 
of  God,  for  He  approved  and  confirmed  the  Hebrew 
Canon.  And  finally,  they  were  rejected  for  four  hundred 
years  by  the  whole  Ijody  of  the  Christian  Church.  And 
yet,  with  all  this  amount  of  historical  evidence  against 
them,  Trent  has  the  audacity  to  declare  that  they  are  entitled 
to  equal  veneration  with  Moses,  the  Prophets,  Evangelists 
and  Apostles;  and  when  every  other  argument  fails  her, 
she  only  adds  to  her  arrogance  and  blasphemy  by  pretend- 
ing to  "  thunder  with  a  voice  like  God  " — to  imitate  the 
very  style  of  Jehovah,  and  to  command  the  nations  to  re- 
ceive her  Canon,  because  she  says  it  is  Divine ! 


APPENDIXES 


APPENDIX  A. 


[FROM  THE  "SPIRIT  OF  THE  NINETEENTH  CENTURY."] 

THE  APOCRYPHAL  BOOKS. 

BY  PROFESSOR  THORNWELL. 


IN  nothing  is  the  intolerable  an-ogance  of  the  Church  of  Rome  more 
strikingly  displayed  than  in  the  authority  which,  if  she  does  not 
formally  claim,  she  yet  pretends  to  exercise,  of  dispensing  the  Holy 
Ghost  not  merely  to  men  themselves,  but  also  to  their  writings.  Thus 
the  famous  Council  of  Trent  has  attempted  to  make  that  Divine  which 
is  notoriously  human,  and  that  inspired  which,  in  the  sense  of  the 
Apostle,  is  notoriously  of  "private  intcriiretation."  We  allude,  of 
course,  to  the  conduct  of  Rome  in  placing  the  Apocrypha  ujjon  an 
equal  footing  with  the  Sacred  Oracles  of  God.  Among  the  books 
which  the  "  holy  oecumenical  and  general  Council  of  Trent,  lawfully 
assembled  in  the  Holy  Spirit,"  has  declared  should  be  received  with 
equal  jiiety  and  veneration  with  the  unquestioned  Word  of  God,  and 
wliich  indeed  have  God  for  their  Author,  are  Tobit,  Judith,  the  addi- 
tions to  the  Book  of  Esther,  Wisdom,  Ecclcsiasticus,  Baruch  with  the 
Ei)istle  of  Jeremiah,  the  Song  of  the  Three  Children,  the  Story  of 
Susannah,  the  Storj'  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  and  the  first  and  second 
books  of  Maccabees. 

Having  by  its  own  authority  constituted  these  books  a  jiart  of  the 
Word  of  God,  the  Holy  Council  jirocecded  to  i)ronounce  its  usual  mal- 
ediction upon  all  who  would  not  receive  them  as  .sjicred  and  canonical. 
Now,  in  direct  opjiosition  to  this  wicked  ami  lilasphcnious  sentence  of 
Rome,  we  as.sert  most  unhesitatingly,  and  shall  endeavour  triumph- 
antly to  jirove,  that  these  books,  commonly  called  the  Apnrn/ithn,  are 
neither  "sacred  nor  canonical,"  and,  of  course,  have  no  more  au- 
thority in  the  Church  of  God  than  Seneca's  Letters  or  Tully's  Offices. 

Let  it  be  remarked,  however,  that  the  uitu.s  prohnmU  rests  upon  the 

746 


746  APPENDIX    A. 

Papists.  The  presumption  is  against  them  until  they  adduce  satisfac- 
tory testimony  in  behalf  of  their  extravagant  pretensions.  Nay,  even 
defect  of  proof  is  fatal  to  their  cause.  They  bring  us  certain  docu- 
ments, and  declare  that  they  were  given  by  inspiration  of  God.  We 
are  bound  to  treat  these  documents  as  we  treat  all  other  writings, 
merely  as  human  productions,  until  clear  and  cogent  arguments  for 
their  Divine  original  are  .submitted  to  our  understandings.  Hence,  the 
Protestant  cause  is  fully  made  out  by  failure  of  proof  on  the  part  of 
the  Romanists.  We  are  not  required,  in  justification  of  our  position, 
to  advance  a  single  argument  against  the  inspiration  of  these  books. 
Our  course  is  a  righteous,  a  necessary  one,  until  they  are  proved  to  be 
inspired.  We  think  it  important  that  this  high  vantage-ground  of 
Protestantism  in  the  argument  upon  this  subject  should  be  fully  ap- 
prehended ;  not  because  we  are  unable  to  prove  that  these  books  are 
not  inspired,  but  in  order  that  it  may  be  distinctly  understood  that  all 
our  positive  arguments  against  them  are  ex  aljwidanti — are  over  and 
above  what  is  actually  required  of  us  in  the  case.  If  our  position  is 
justified  by  failure  on  the  part  of  Rome  to  establish  her  asi^ertion,  it 
is  more  than  justified — it  is  doubly  fortified  and  rendered  wholly  im- 
pregnable— by  the  irresistible  arguments  which  we  are  able  to  allege 
against  the  inspiration  of  the  Apocryphal  books.  With  the  distinct 
understanding,  then,  that  we  are  doing  a  work  which  justice  to  our 
own  cause  does  not  absolutely  require,  but  which  only  exposes  in  a 
stronger  light  the  arrogance  and  blasphemy  of  Rome,  we  proceed  to 
show,  by  a  few  positive  considerations,  that  these  books  have  not  the 
shadow  of  a  claim  to  Divine  inspiration. 

1.  Our  first  argument  is  drawn  from  the  indisputable  fact  that  these 
books  were  not  found  in  the  Canon  of  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  our 
Saviour  and  His  Apostles.  It  is  even  doubted  by  learned  men 
whether  some  of  them  existed  at  all  until  some  time  after  the  last 
of  the  Apostles  had  fallen  asleep.  But,  be  this  as  it  may,  they  were 
not  in  the  sacred  Canon  of  the  Jews  or  the  catalogue  of  books  which 
the  whole  nation  received  as  coming  from  God.  We  have  very  clear 
testimony  upon  the  subject  of  the  Jewish  Canon,  in  Josephus,  Philo, 
the  Talmud,  and  the  early  Christian  Fathers.  It  is  unnecessary  to 
quote  these  testimonies  at  full  length.  Those  who  have  not  access  to 
the  original  works  may  find  them  fixithfully  collated  in  Schmidius  De 
Canone  Sacro,  and  in  Eichhorn's  Einleitung.  We  would  particu- 
larly commend  to  the  reader's  attention  Hornemann's  book,  De 
Canone  Philonis.  Augustine  again  and  again  confesses  that  the 
Apocrypha  formed  no  part  of  the  Jewish  Canon.  He  declares  that 
Solomon  was  not  the  author  of  the  books  of  Ecclesiasticus  and  Wis- 
dom, and  assures  us,  moreover,  that  these  books  were  chiefly  respected 
by  the  Western  Christians.     He  informs  us  that  Judith  was  not  re- 


THE    APOCRYPHAL    BOOKS.  747 

ceiveil  by  the  Jews:  ami  his  testimony  in  relation  to  INIaccabees  is 
equally  decisive.  We  insist  upon  the  testimony  of  Augustine,  which 
maybe  found  in  his  treatise  De  Civ.  Dei,  lib.  i.,  c.  17,  because  he  had 
evidently  a  very  great  respect  for  these  books,  for  he  frequently  quotes 
thcTU,  and  because  he  was  a  member  of  the  bodies  whose  decisions  in 
their  favour  have  been  strongly  and  earnestly  pleaded.  We  take  it, 
then,  to  be  a  fact  which  no  scholar  would  think  of  calling  into  ques- 
tion— sustained  by  the  concurring  testimony  of  Jews  and  Christians 
for  four  hundred  years  after  Christ — that  the  Jews  rejected  the  Ajwc- 
rypha  from  their  Canon.  For  the  purpose  of  our  present  argument  it 
is  not  necessary  to  sliow  what  books  they  did  receive,  nor  how  they 
classed  and  arranged  them.  It  is  enough  that  they  had  a  Canon 
which  they  believed  to  be  inspired,  and  that  in  it  the  Apocrypha  were 
not  included. 

Now  our  argument  is  this :  Jesus  Christ  and  His  Apostles  ap- 
proved of  the  Jewish  Canon,  whatever  it  was,  appealed  to  it  as  pos- 
sessing Divine  authority,  and  evidently  treated  it  as  at  that  time 
complete,  or  as  containing  the  whole  of  God's  revelation  as  far  as  it 
was  then  made.  If  the  Apocrypha  had  been  really  a  part  of  that 
revelation,  and  the  Jews  had  either  ignorantly  or  wickedly  suppressed 
it,  how  comes  it  that  Christ  nowhere  rebukes  them  for  their  error? 
We  find  him  severely  inveighing  against  the  Phari.sees  for  adding  to 
the  \Vord  of  God  by  their  vain  traditions,  but  not  a  sj'llable  do  we 
hear  in  regard  to  what  was  equally  culpable— their  talcing  from  it, 
which  they  certainly  had  done  if  the  Apocry]iha  were  inspired.  Here 
was  confes.sedly  a  great  Teacher  and  Prophet  in  Israel — their  long-ex- 
pected 3Iessiah,  who  constituted  the  burden  of  their  Scriptures,  ac- 
cording to  His  own  testimon.v — and  yet  while  He  quotes  and  approves 
the  Canon  of  the  Jews,  and  remands  the  Jews  themselves  to  their 
own  Scriptures,  He  nowhere  insinuates  that  their  sacred  librarj^  was 
defective.  If  the  Jews  had  done  wrong  in  rejecting  the  Ajiocrj'pha, 
is  it  credible  that  He  who  came  in  the  name  of  God,  a  Teacher  sent 
from  God  to  reveal  fully  the  Divine  will,  would  have  passed  over, 
without  noticing  it,  such  a  fla<;rant  fraud?  We  find  Him  reproving 
his  countrymen  for  ever}-  other  corniption  in  regard  to  sacred  things 
of  which  thej'  are  known  to  have  been  guilty,  but  not  a  whisper  es- 
capes His  lips  or  the  lips  of  His  Apostles  touching  this  gross  sujjpres- 
sion  of  a  large  portion  of  the  Word  of  God.  The  conclusion  is  irre- 
sistible, that  neither  Jesus  nor  His  Apostles  believed  in  the  Divine 
authority  of  the  Apocrj'pha— they  knew  that  they  were  not  inspired. 
We  will  grant  the  llomanist  what  he  cannot  prove,  and  what  we  can 
disprove — that  these  books  are  quoted  in  the  New  Testament.  This 
will  not  remove  the  difficulty.  According  to  his  views  of  the  Canon, 
the  Jews  were  guilty  of  an  outrageous  fraud  in  regard  to  the  Sacred 


748  APPENDIX    A. 

Oracles ;  and  yet  neither  Christ  nor  His  Apostles,  whose  business  it 
was  to  give  us  the  whole  revelation  of  Grod,  ever  charged  them  with 
this  fraud,  or  took  any  steps  to  restore  the  rejected  books  to  their 
proper  places.  Christ,  as  the  great  Prophet  of  the  Church,  was  un- 
faithful to  His  high  and  solemn  trust  if  He  stood  silently  by  when  the 
Word  of  God  was  trampled  in  the  dust,  or  buried  in  obscurity,  or 
even  robbed  of  its  full  authority.  To  the  Jews  were  committed  the 
Oracles  of  God  (Rom.  iii.  2) :  if  they  betrayed  their  trust  we  ought 
to  have  been  informed  of  it  before  the  lapse  of  sixteen  centuries. 

It  is  in  vain  to  allege  that  Christ  and  His  Apostles  used  the  Septua- 
gint,  and  that  this  version  contained  the  Apocrypha.  In  the  first 
place,  it  cannot  be  proved  that  the  Septuagint  at  that  time  did  con- 
tain the  Apocrypha.  In  the  second  place,  if  it  did  contain  them,  the 
difficulty  is  rather  increased  than  lessened.  The  question  is,  What 
books  did  the  Jews,  to  whom  were  committed  the  Oracles  of  God. 
receive  as  inspired  ?  Did  Christ  know  that  they  rejected  the  Apoc- 
rypha from  the  list  of  inspired  writings  ?  If  so,  and  the  Septuagint 
version  was  in  His  hands,  and  really  contained  these  rejected  books, 
what  more  natural  than  that  Christ  should  have  told  His  Apostles 
that  here  are  books  which  the  Jews  reject,  but  which  you  must  re- 
ceive— they  are  of  equal  authority  with  the  Law,  the  Prophets  and 
the  Psalms?  His  total  silence  both  before  the  Jews  and  His  own 
disciples  becomes  more  unaccountable  than  ever  if  the  books  were 
actually  before  Him  and  almost  forced  upon  His  notice  by  the  version 
of  the  Scriptures  which  He  used.  But  we  do  not  insist  upon  this, 
because  we  do  not  believe  that  the  Septuagint,  at  that  time,  contained 
the  Apocrypha.^  If  it  should  be  said  that  the  Jews  received  these 
books  as  inspired,  but  did  not  insert  them  in  the  Canon  because  they 
had  not  the  authority  of  a  Prophet  for  doing  so,  why  is  it  that  Christ 
did  not  give  the  requisite  authority,  if  not  to  the  Jewish  priests  and 
rulers,  at  least  to  His  own  Apostles  ? 

Upon  every  view  of  the  subject,  then,  the  silence  of  Christ  is  wholly 
unaccountable  if  these  writings  are  really  inspired.  It  becomes  sim- 
ple and  natural  upon  the  supposition  that  they  were  merely  human 
productions.  The  Jews  had  done  right  in  rejecting  them.  They  stood 
upon  a  footing  with  other  literary  works,  and  our  Saviour  had  no  more 
occasion  to  mention  them  than  he  had  to  mention  the  wi-itings  of  the 
Greek  philosophers. 

2.  If  it  should  be  pretended  that  Christ  did  give  His  Apostles 
authority  to  receive  these  books,  though  no  record  was  made  of  the 
fact,  we  ask  how  it  comes  to  pass— and  we  mention  this  as  our  second 
argument  against  them— that  for  four  centuries  the  unbroken  testi- 
mony of  the  Christian  Church  is  against  their  inspiration  ?    They  are 

1  Vid.  Schmitliu!--,  De  Canone. 


THE    APOCRYPHAL    BOOKS.  749 

not  included  in  the  catalogues  given  l)y  ^felito,'  bishoji  of  Sardis,  who 
floinished  in  the  second  century,  of  Origen,'^  Athanasius,*  Hilary,* 
Cyril  of  Jenisaleui,^  Epiphanius,®  Gregory  Nazianzen/  Kuffinus/  and 
others ;  neither  arc  they  mentioned  among  the  canonical  books  recog- 
nized by  the  Council  of  Laodicea.  As  a  sample  of  the  testimonies  re- 
ferred to  in  the  margin,  we  will  give  a  few  passages  from  Jerome,  the 
author  of  the  authentic  version  commonly  called  the  Vnfr/nte.  In  the 
l*retace  concerning  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  which  he  pre- 
fixed to  his  Latin  translation  of  Samuel  and  Kings,  after  having  given 
us  the  Jewish  Canon,  he  says,  "  JJic  prologus  script urtirum,  quasi 
Gdleatum  ptincipium  omnibus  libris  quas  de  Ilcbrieo  vertimus  in  Lat- 
innm  cnnrniire  2^otest:  lit  scire  valeamus  quicquid  extra  hos  est  inter 
Apocriipha  esse  ponendum."  "Therefore,"  he  adds,  "Wisdom, 
which  is  vulgarly  attributed  to  Solomon,  and  the  book  of  Jesus  the 
son  of  Sirach,  and  Judith,  and  Tobias,  and  Pastor,  are  not  in  the 
Canon."  His  testimony  in  relation  to  the  Maccabees  is  equally  de- 
cided. In  the  Prologue  to  his  Commentary  on  Jeremiah,  he  declines 
explaining  the  book  of  Baruch,  which  in  the  edition  of  the  LXX.  is 
commonly  joined  with  it,  because  the  Jews  rejected  it  from  the  Canon, 
and  he  of  course  knew  of  no  authority  for  inserting  it.  In  the  Preface 
to  his  translation  of  Daniel  he  assures  us  that  the  Story  of  Susannah, 
the  Song  of  the  Three  Children,  and  the  fables  of  Bel  and  the 
Dragon,  are  not  only  not  in  the  Jewish  copies,  but  had  exposed  Chris- 
tians to  ridicule  for  the  respect  which  they  paid  to  them.  In  his 
Preface  to  Tobit  and  Judith  he  pronounces  them  Apocryphal ! 

Here,  then,  about  the  close  of  the  fourth  centurj-,  we  find  no  rem- 
nant of  any  unwritten  tradition  from  Christ  and  His  Apostles  author- 
izing the  Church  to  receive  these  books.  The  early  Fathers  followed 
in  the  footsteps  of  the  Jews,  and  imanimously  concurred  in  receiving 
no  other  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  as  inspired  but  that  which 
came  down  to  them  through  the  Jewish  Church.  In  this  opinion 
learned  n)en  in  every  age  have  concurred  up  to  the  very  meeting  of 
the  Council  of  Trent.  We  refer  to  such  men  as  Cardinal  Ximenes, 
Ludovicus  Vives,  the  accomplished  Erasmus  and  Cardinal  Cajetan. 
How  could  there  have  been  such  a  general  concuiTcnce  in  an  error  so 
deplorable  if  Christ  and  His  Apostles  had  ever  treated  these  books  as 
the  lively  Oracles  of  God?  Surely  there  would  have  been  some 
record,  some  hint,  of  a  fact  so  remarkable.  We  ask  the  Romanist  to 
reconcile  the  testimonies  of  the  Fathers  with  the  decree  of  Trent.  In 
the  language  of  Bishop  Burnet :  "  Here  we  have  four  centuries  clear 

1  Euseb.,  lib.  iv.,  c.  20.  '■'  Expos.  Psal.  i.,  Oi)p.  toiu.  ii.,  Euseb.,  vi.  25. 

'  Pasch.  Epist.  ♦  Prolog,  in  Psalmos. 

5  4th  Catceh.  Exer.  «  Hacrc?,  i.  6. 

"  Can.  23.  8  Expos,  ad.  Syiub.  Apost. 


750  appp:ndix  a. 

for  our  Canon,  in  exclusion  of  all  ad  Jit  ions.  It  were  easj'  to  carry  this 
much  farther  down,  and  to  s^how  that  these  books  (the  Apocrj-pha) 
were  never  by  any  express  definition  received  into  the  Canon  till  it 
was  done  at  Trent,  and  that  in  all  ages  of  the  Church,  even  after  they 
came  to  be  much  esteemed,  there  were  divers  writers,  and  those  gen- 
erally the  most  learned  of  their  time,  who  denied  them  to  be  a  part  of 
the  Canon." 

3.  The  third  argument  which  we  shall  bring  forward  is  drawn  from 
the  books  themselves.  In  reading  them  we  not  only  ai-e  struck  with 
the  absence  of  that  "  heavenliness  of  matter,  efficacy  of  doctrine, 
majesty  of  style,  concert  of  all  the  parts  and  general  scope  of  the 
whole  to  give  glory  to  God,"  by  which  the  Sacred  Scriptures  abun- 
dantly evidence  themselves  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  but  we  are  as 
forcibly  struck  with  defects  utterly  inconsistent  with  these  excellences. 
To  say  nothing  of  their  silly  and  ridiculous  stories,  these  books  notori- 
ously contain  palpable  lies,  gross  anachronisms,  flat  contradictions  and 
doctrinal  statements  wholly  irreconcilable  with  what  we  are  taught  in 
the  unquestioned  Oracles  of  God.  Such  things  are  totally  inconsistent 
with  the  idea  of  inspiration. 

It  would  be  easy  to  make  good  these  charges  by  citations  from  the 
books,  but  it  is  unnecessary  to  protract  our  article  by  quotations  which 
have  again  and  again  been  made  for  the  same  purpose. 

What,  under  the  present  head,  we  wish  particularly  to  remark  is, 
that  these  books,  or  at  least  several  of  them,  virtually  disclaim  all  pre- 
tensions to  inspiration.  They  do  not  profess  to  be  the  Word  of  God ; 
and  why  should  Protestants  be  blamed  for  not  conceding  to  them  an 
authority  which  they  themselves  do  not  claim  ?  They  come  to  us  from 
their  authors  merely  as  human  productions :  we  treat  them  as  .such ; 
and  yet  we  are  consigned  to  the  damnation  of  hell  because  we  do  not 
believe  that  a  writer  was  inspired  when  he  did  not  believe  it  him- 
self! 

The  author  of  the  second  book  of  IMaccabees  professes  to  have 
abridged  a  work  of  Jason  of  Cyrene,  and  concerning  his  performance 
he  holds  the  following  language,  which  can  be  reconciled  with  a  belief 
on  his  part  that  he  was  inspired  when  light  is  made  to  have  fellow 
ship  with  darkness,  and  God  with  Belial,  and  not  till  then:  "There- 
fore, to  us  that  have  taken  upon  us  this  painful  labor  of  abridging,  it 
was  not  easy,  but  a  matter  of  sweat  and  watching,  even  as  it  is  no  ease 
to  him  that  prepareth  a  banquet  and  seeketh  the  benefit  of  others; 
yet  for  the  pleasing  of  many  we  will  undertake  gladly  this  great  pains, 
leaving  to  the  author  the  exact  handling  of  every  particular,  and  la- 
bouring to  follow  the  rules  of  an  abridgment,"  etc.  [2  Mac.  ii.  26,  seq.). 
Here  his  motives,  as  a.ssigned  by  himself,  are  such  as  induce  ordinaiy 
men  to  write,  and  his  method  is  taken  from  the  common  rules  of  crit- 


THE    APOCRYPHAL    BOOKS.  751 

icism.  Ill  otlier  words,  it  is  obviously  a  human  composition,  and  was 
intended  to  have  no  more  authority  than  any  other  historical  docu- 
ment. To  the  same  purport  is  the  following  sentence  near  the  close 
of  the  book  :  "  And  if  I  have  done  well,  and  as  is  fitting  the  story,  it 
is  that  which  I  desired  ;  but  if  slenderly  and  meanly,  it  is  that  which 
I  could  attain  unto."  Is  this  the  language  of  a  man  who  "  spake  as 
he  was  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost"  ?  Does  he  seem  to  have  drawn 
from  the  inexhaustible  fountain  of  Divine  truth,  or  from  the  shallow 
resources  of  his  owii  mind?  Yerily,  none  but  a  madman  could  speak 
on  this  wise  and  yet  believe  that  he  was  insi)ired  of  God.  The  Pro- 
logue to  Ecclesiasticus-^a  production  of  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach — is 
ju.st  as  decisive  in  reference  to  it.  As  it  is  too  long  to  quote,  we  shall 
content  ourselves  by  simply  referring  to  it.  The  writer  asks  pardon 
for  a  defective  interpretation  of  a  Hebrew  document,  and  declares  that 
his  whole  performance  was  the  result  of  diligence  and  travail,  of  great 
watchfulness  and  skill.  And  yet,  according  to  the  Romanist,  instead 
of  being  the  product  of  human  thought  and  labour,  it  was  the  super- 
natural dictation  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  pretence  in  this  ease  is  too 
absurd  for  argument.  In  the  first  bffl)k  of  Maccabees  we  are  assured 
that  there  was  not  a  Prophet  or  inspired  man  in  Israel  to  direct  them 
what  to  do  with  the  altar  which  had  been  profaned.  (1  Mac.  iv.  46.) 
The  same  declaration  is  repeated  in  the  course  of  the  book  again,  and 
yet,  contrary  to  his  own  testimony,  we  are  required  to  believe  that  the 
writer  himself  was  inspired.  In  fact,  it  was  the  universal  opinion  of 
the  Jewish  nation  that  inspiration  cea.sed  with  3Ialachi,  not  to  be  re- 
vived until  the  dawn  of  the  New  Dispensation,  and  that,  consequently, 
no  books  which  were  written  after  the  time  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus 
were  worthy  of  any  credit  as  inspired  records. 

We  might  go  over  each  of  the  Apocryphal  books  one  by  one,  and 
produce  .such  numerous  instances  of  falsehood,  error,  contradiction 
and  absurdity  as  to  render  it  utterly  impos.sible  that  any  .should  at- 
tribute them  to  God  but  those  whose  credulity  is  enormous  enough  to 
swallow  down  the  nonsense  and  blasphemy  of  transubstantiation,  and 
to  believe  that  God  can  be  multiplied  by  the  million  without  disturb- 
ing His  unity,  and  made  at  will  out  of  cakes  and  wine  without  de- 
tracting from  His  glory.  Such  men  can  believe  anything,  and  to  such 
men  it  is  useless  to  urge  the  authority  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles ; 
vain  to  allege  the  concurring  testimony  of  the  leading  writers  of  the 
Primitive  Church ;  vainer  still  to  jdead  absurdity,  contradiction  and 
lies,  and  even  imi)licd  disclaimers  from  the  writings  in  question :  they 
have  an  authority  higher  than  all  these.  The  Council  of  Trent  has 
spoken — the  man  of  sin  and  the  son  of  perdition,  who  has  given  out 
that  he.  is  God.  has  spoken  from  his  throne  of  blasphemy  and  abom- 


752  APPENDIX   A. 

inations ;  and  the  voice  of  a  general  council  and  the  Pope  is  enough 
to  silence  reason,  to  sanctify  blasphemy  and  to  canonize  falsehood. 

But  to  those  who  are  not  yet  fastened  as  captives  to  the  car  of  Rome 
we  appeal  in  the  confident  expectation  of  success.  Can  any  candid 
and  unprejudiced  mind  believe  that  these  books  proceeded  from  God, 
when  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  to  establish  the  feet ;  when 
the  Jewish  Church,  to  which  were  committed  the  Oracles  of  God,  re- 
jected them ;  when  Christ  and  His  Apostles  rejected  them ;  when  for 
four  centuries  united  Christendom  rejected  them  ;  when  up  to  the 
very  time  of  the  meeting  of  Trent  the  most  enlightened  members  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  rejected  them ;  when,  in  addition  to  all  this,  the 
books  themselves  do  not  profess  to  be  inspired,  and  abound  in  absurdity, 
contradiction  and  lies?  Despising  the  authority  of  Popes  and  Coun- 
cils, we  bring  the  matter  to  the  bar  of  sober  reason  and  sound  argu- 
ment ;  and  we  challenge  Rome  to  vindicate  herself  from  the  charge  of 
intolerable  arrogance  and  blasphemy  in  her  corrupt  additions  to  the 
Word  of  God.  The  argument  which  she  uses  with  her  own  vassals 
will  not  do  among  thinking  men.  Until  she  can  adduce  clear,  decided, 
unanswerable  proof  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Apocrypha,  all  who  rev- 
erence God  or  love  their  race  are  solemnly  bound  to  reject  these  books, 
and  to  treat  them  precisely  as  all  Protestant  chm-ches  alwaj'S  have 
treated  them.  Rome  may  denounce  her  anathema  against  us,  but  we 
know  full  well  that  the  terrible  malediction  of  God  rests  upon  her.  It 
is  not  a  hght  matter  whether  we  receive  or  reject  these  writings.  If 
they  are  not  inspired,  those  who  receive  them  run  the  risk  of  ever- 
lasting damnation;  if  they  are,  those  who  reject  them  are  exposed  to 
the  same  danger. 

That  Protestants  reject  them  because  they  contain  unpalatable  doc- 
trines is  a  fiction  of  the  Roman  priesthood  to  divert  attention  from 
the  real  state  of  the  argument.  Light  is  death  to  their  cause ;  and 
therefore  they  resort  to  every  trick  of  sophistry  and  of  falsehood  to 
obscure  the  question  at  issue,  and  to  escape  unexposed  in  their  frauds 
and  impostui'es.  We  reject  them  because  they  are  not  inspired;  and 
we  shall  continue  to  do  so  until  the  contrary  is  clearly  proved,  as  well 
as  boldly  asserted.  Let  the  Romanists  come  up  manfully  to  the  point 
of  impiration.  That  is  the  issue  between  us,  and  upon  that  issue  we 
are  always  ready  to  meet  them. 


APPENDIX  B. 


LETTERS    OF    A.    P.    F 


LETTER  I. 


To  THE  Reverend  JAMES  H.  TIIORN'WELL,  Professor  of  the  Evidences  of  Chris- 

TIANITV,    ETC.  : 

REA'EREND  SIR — I  need  offer  no  apology  for  thus  publicly  ad- 
dre8.sing  you.  The  Columbia  Chronicle  of  the  15th  ult.,  for- 
warded to  uje  a  few  weeks  ago  by  a  friend,  contains  an  article  under 
your  name  on  what  you  term  the  Apocn/ph'd  Books,  which  at  my  re- 
quest the  Editors  of  the  Miscellany  republish  together  with  this  letter. 
The  character  of  that  article  is  such  as  to  render  it  no  longer  an  intru- 
sion either  on  you  or  on  the  public  thus  to  vindicate  the  Catholic 
Church  from  your  attacks. 

Permit  me  to  take  this  occasion  of  expressing,  once  for  all,  my  re- 
gret at  finding  an  essay  from  you  so  plentifully  interspersed  witli  the 
vulgar  e])ithets  Papist,  Eomaymt,  and  such  manifestations  of  ill-feel- 
ing as  the  ex])ressions  vassals  of  Rome  and  captives  to  the  car  of  Rome, 
the  assertion  that  "our  credulity  is  enormous,"  and  your  mocking  lan- 
guage concerning  the  awful  mystery  of  transubstantiation  and  the 
Church,  with  which,  even  in  quotation,  I  am  unwilling  to  sully  my  pen. 
Believe  me,  reverend  sir,  such  invectives  contain  no  argument. 
They  are  unbecoming  the  subject,  and — may  I  presume  to  add  ? — the 
dignified  station  you  occupy.  Your  essay  would  have  lost  none  of  its 
weight,  and  to  Catholics  would  have  been  infinitely  less  revolting,  had 
they  been  omitted.  Catholics  are  neither  outcasts  from  society  nor 
devoid  of  feeling ;  they  are  neither  insensible  to,  nor  think  they  de- 
serve, such  words  of  opprobrium.  It  is  true  we  have  often  to  draw  on 
our  patience,  for  the  rules  of  courtesy  are  frequently  violated  in  our 
regard.  Still  it  is  painful  to  .see  a  Professor  descending  from  calm, 
gentlemanly  and  enlightened  argument  to  mingle  with  the  crowd  of 
those  whose  weapons  are  misrepresentations  and  abuse.  To  me  it  is 
Vol.  III.— 48  755 


754  APPENDIX    B, 

doubly  painful  when  such  language  obliges  me  not  to  respect  as  highly 
as  I  would  desire  those  whom  I  address.  I  will  not  recur  to  this  dis- 
agreeable topic,  but  will  endeavour  to  write  as  if  your  arguments  were 
unaccoTupanied  by  what  Catholics  must  consider  as  insults. 

I  cordially  agree  with  you  that  "  it  is  not  a  light  matter  whether  we 
receive  or  reject  those  writings"  which  are  contained  in  the  Canon  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  as  received  by  the  Catholic  Church,  and  are  ex- 
cluded from  that  generally  adopted  by  the  different  denominations  of 
Protestantism.  Still  I  am  not  prepared  to  unite  unconditionally  in 
your  denunciatory  clauses.  Undoubtedly,  all  who  know  the  truth  are 
hound  to  believe  and  profess  it ;  otherwise  they  "  run  the  risk  of  eter- 
nal damnation. "  All  too  are  bound  according  to  their  ability,  sincerely, 
earnestly  and  perseveringly  to  seek  the  truths  of  revelation  on  this  as 
on  all  other  points ;  and  those  who  having  the  means  neglect  to  do  so 
"  are  exposed  to  the  same  danger."  Still  there  may  be  others  to  whom 
Divine  Providence  has  not  vouchsafed  such  means ;  and  they  assuredly 
will  not  be  punished  for  not  performing  an  impossibility. 

Your  essay  contains  some  preliminary  remarks  on  the  authority  of 
the  Church  to  declare  what  books  are  sacred  and  canonical,  and  on  the 
state  of  the  question  ;  and  lays  down  three  arguments  to  prove  that 
the  books  in  question  are  not  inspired.  I  shall  take  up  these  different 
heads  in  order,  and  trust,  by  a  few  remarks  in  this  and  perhaps  two  or 
three  other  letters,  to  convince  a  "candid  and  unprejudiced  mind  by 
sound  argument  and  sober  reason"  that  the  Catholic  Church  has  not 
been  guilty  of  the  heinous  crime  you  lay  at  her  door — that  of  making 
corrupt  additions  to  the  Word  of  God. 

You  commence  with  the  following  remarks: 

"  In  nothing  is  the  intolerable  arrogance  of  the  Chiu'ch  of  Rome," 
etc.  [Here  A.  P.  F.  quotes  a  paragraph  and  more  from  the  preced- 
ing article  of  Dr.  Thornwell.] 

I  doubt  not,  reverend  sir,  you  here  accurately  express  your  con- 
ception of  what  the  Council  of  Trent  did  in  regard  to  the  Scriptures. 
But  your  terms  express  neither  the  belief  of  Catholics  nor  the  action  of 
the  Council.  A  Canon  I  have  always  understood  to  be  a  list  or  a  cata- 
logue, netting  f 01-th  what  books  are  inspired,  not  giving  or  dispensing 
inspiration  to  uninspired  books.  A  work  to  be  entitled  to  a  place  in  a 
Canon  must  be  believed  already  inspired ;  and  if  believed  to  be  in- 
spired at  any  one  period,  it  must  be  believed  to  have  been  always  in- 
spired. Until  a  Canon  is  formed,  a  catalogue  of  inspired  works  drawn 
up,  manifest!}',  thougli  many  works  may  be  sacred  because  inspired, 
none  can  be  canonical,  because  none  can  be  inserted  in  a  catalogue 
which  does  not  yet  exist.  He  who  forms  a  Canon  must  naturally  first 
decide  what  books  are  and  what  are  not  inspired.  Did  the  Council  of 
Trent  in  making  such  a  decision  "  display  intolerable  arrogance  ?"   Rev- 


FIRST   LETTER  OF    A.    P.    F.  755 

erend  sir,  your  essay  claims  to  contain  a  decision  on  that  i)oint  which, 
according  to  the  rules  and  maxims  of  Protestantism,  i>roceeds  from 
j'our  own  authority  to  decide  for  yourself,  and  for  which  you  alone  are 
responsible.  If  you  alone  and  the  Fathers  of  Trent  together  are 
equallj'^  qualified  to  make  that  decision,  then  must  the  same  terms 
which  you  apply  to  them  be  applicable  to  yourself.  If,  on  the  con- 
trary, any  one  should  think  j^ou  personally  inferior  to  them  in  the  qual- 
ifications of  learning  and  research  on  this  point,  then,  unless  charity 
and  courtesy  forbid  him,  as  certainly  they  do  me,  must  he  look  for  ex- 
pressions, if  possible,  more  bitter  and  harsh  than  j'our  own.  I  pre- 
sume, however,  that  the  ardour  with  which  you  engaged  in  the  contest 
blinded  your  e3-es  to  the  fact  that  while  .you  made  your  very  first 
thrust  at  the  Council,  you  fatally  exi)Osed  yourself  to  the  retort. 

\Ve  believe  that  the  Church  of  Christ  will  ever  know  and  believe 
and  teach  His  doctrines  and  precepts — that  He  has  secured  to  her  the 
possession  of  the  truths  of  Ilis  revelation  through  the  ministry  of  that 
body  of  pastors  of  wliich  the  Apostles  were  the  first  members,  and 
whom  He  appointed  His  delegates  and  sent  forth  to  "baptize  all  na- 
tions, teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  He  had  taught 
them,"  guaranteeing  at  the  same  time  that  He  would  be  with  them  in 
the  performance  of  this  duty  ALL  day.s,  even  to  the  consummation 
of  the  world.  He  promised  them  the  Spirit  of  truth,  who  .should 
teach  them  all  truth.  Hence  we  hold  that  the  Apostles  and  their  suc- 
cessors in  the  ministry,  in  the  first  and  second  and  in  every  succeeding 
century,  have  taught,  and  icill  continue  to  the  end  of  the  world  to 
teach,  all  things  that  He  taught  them  originally ;  and  when  they  tes- 
tify that  any  doctrine  is  one  of  those  originally  taught  by  the  Saviour, 
and  handed  down  to  them  by  their  predecessors  in  the  ministry,  we 
feel  bound  to  hear  them,  His  delegated  teachers,  as  we  would  hear 
Him  from  whom  they  received  their  authority,  and  we  have  the  as- 
surance that  He  is  with  them,  and  teaches  through  them. 

I  will  not,  reverend  sir,  enter  at  large  on  the  general  jiroofs  on  this 
point.  I  might  show  that  our  doctrine  is  fully  sustained  by  the  words 
of  the  Saviour  himself,  that  it  has  ever  been  recognized  and  acted 
on  from  the  earliest  days  of  Christianity,  that  the  contrary  is  opposed 
to  rea.son  and  the  infinite  wisdom  of  God,  inasmuch  as  it  would  ever 
leave  us  in  doubt  and  indecision,  and  as  only  through  it  can  all  learn, 
with  that  certainty  which  is  required  for  an  uidiesitating  assent  of 
reason,  what  doctrines  have  been  in  truth  revealed  by  the  Saviour. 
To  attempt  to  establish  all  this  would  be  to  depart  too  far  from  the 
subject  I  have  undertaken  to  treat.  I  will  consider  it  simply  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Canon  of  Scripture;  and  hope  to  show  that  the  authority 
claimed  by  the  Catholic  Church  of  determining  the  Canon— that  is,  of 
authoritatively  declaring  what  books  have  been  committed  to  her  care 


756  APPENDIX   B. 

bj-  the  Apostles  as  inspired,  and  have  ever  been  revered  as  such — so 
far  from  being  a  "striking  display  of  intolerable  arrogance,"  must  be 
admitted  if  the  Christian  world  generally  is  to  possess  any  certainty 
of  Divine  inspiration. 

In  the  first  place,  it  seems  strange  to  me  that  you  should  so  severely 
condemn  the  Catholic  Church  for  having  presumed  to  draw  up  a 
Canon.  It  is  nothing  more  than  many  denominations  of  Protestants— 
your  own,  reverend  sir,  included — have  done.  In  the  Tliirty-nine  Ar- 
ticles of  the  Church  of  England  and  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States,  in  the  Articles  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  and  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  the  Presbyterians, 
we  find  Canons  of  the  Scriptures.  Nothing  is  more  natural  than  that 
several  ecclesiastical  bodies,  as  the.*e  denominations  are,  should  give 
forth  to  its  members  and  the  world,  through  what  each,  according  to  its 
peculiar  polity,  recognizes  as  its  proper  tribunal,  decisions  on  this  all- 
important  point.  In  the  Catholic  Church  a  general  council  is  deemed 
a  proper  tribunal,  and  when  circumstances  required  it  the  Catholic 
Church  through  such  a  tribunal  gave  her  declaration.  I  am  not  now 
speaking  of  the  accuracy  of  the  decision,  but  of  the  "authority  exer- 
cised" in  making  it.  In  stj'ling  it  "a  striking  display  of  intolerable 
aiTOgance,"  j'ou  strike  a  blow  which  harms  us  not,  but  recoils  with 
tenfold  force  on  your  own  denomination.  Surely,  if  the  persons  as- 
sembled at  Westminster  could  draw  up  a  Canon  or  catalogue  of  what 
they  were  of  opinion  should  be  received  and  acknowledged  by  all  as 
inspired  books,  the  Catholic  Church  could  through  her  bishops  assem- 
bled in  council  declare  too  what  books  had  ever  been  handed  down  in 
her  bosom  as  the  Word  of  God.  If  it  was  no  aiTOgance  in  the  first  to 
put  forth  a  decree  which  was  valueless,  because  on  their  own  princi- 
ples it  bound  no  one,  and  which  every  member  of  your  communion  ha.s 
a  right  to  reform,  and  which  some  to  my  own  knowledge  do  reform,  it 
was  certainly  none  in  the  Catholic  Church  to  pronounce  a  decree  which 
circumstances  required,  and  which  her  children  throughout  the  world 
felt  had  some  weight.  You  might  contend  that  the  Catholic  Church 
has  no  commission  from  God  to  make  such  decisions — that  Catholics 
err  when  they  believe  them  to  possess  some  value.  That  would  be 
attacking  our  doctrine.  But  it  strikes  me  as  strange  that  this  partic- 
ular exei-cise  of  authority  should  be  singled  out  for  condemnation  by  a 
divine  of  a  church  which,  without  even  claiming  this  commi,<sion  or 
this  authority  for  its  decrees,  has  nevertheless  jierformed  the  same  act. 
One  who  rejects  as  uninspired  the  Canticle  of  Canticles — and,  if  we 
may  believe  a  recent  writer  in  the  Magnolia,  there  are  many  biblical 
scholars  in  this  coimtry  Avho  do — must  look  on  the  declaration  of  the 
Westminster  Confession,  that  that  book  is  inspired,  as  at  lea>t  an 
equally  striking  display  of  intolerable  arrogance  as  the  declaration  of 


FIRST    LETTER   OF   A.    P.    F.  757 

thp  Council  of  Trent  that  the  books  you  mention  were  ever  presei"ved 
in  the  Church,  and  must  still  be  held  as  divinely  inspired.  I  might 
:il.-<o  say  that  it  is  not  more  arrogant  to  declare  that  a  contested  book  is 
divinely  inspired  than  that  a  contested  doctrine  or  precept  is  contained 
in  the  Scripture.  And  j-et  we  need  not  go  back  many  months  to  find 
your  Assembly  declaring  this  last,  and  enforcing  its  declaration  under 
l)enalty  of  su.spension  from  the  ministry  and  exclusion  from  your  sac- 
rament. I  jjress  this  view  farther  than  perhaps  seems  necessary;  but 
your  article,  like  most  articles  written  against  us,  breathes  a  spirit  which 
I  will  not  qualify,  but  which  would  exclude  the  Catholic  Church  from 
that  right  Protestants  boast  God  has  given  to  all  men — to  believe  in 
religious  matters  according  to  our  own  judgment,  and  to  declare  what 
she  holds  true. 

With  these  remarks  on  the  performance  of  the  act,  let  us  pass  ou 
to  the  decision  itself  and  its  truth.  I  have  taken  exception  to  the 
idea  of  the  decision  conveyed  by  yoiu-  words.  Let  the  Fathers  speak 
for  themselves : 

"  Sacrosancta  cecumenica  et  generalis  Tridentina  SjTiodus,  in  Spiritu 
Sancto  legitime  congregata,  prassidentibus  in  ea  iisdem  tribus  Apos- 
tolica)  Sedis  legatis,  hoc  sibi  perpetuo  ante  oculos  proponens,  ut,  sub- 
latis  erroribus,  puritas  ipsa  evangelii  in  ecclesia  conservetur;  quod 
])ronnssum  ante  per  prophetas  in  Scripturis  Sanctis,  Dominus  noster 
Christus  ])ei  filius  proprio  ore  primum  promulgavit;  deinde  per  suos 
Ajiostnlos  tauijuam  fontem  onmis  et  salutaris  veritatis  et  moruin  disci- 
jiliniv  omni  creatur;\3  prajdicari  jussit:  penspiciensque  banc  veritatem 
et  disciplinam  coutineri  in  libris  scriptis.  et  sine  scripto  traditionibus, 
qua;  ex  ipsius  Christi  ore  ab  Apostolis  accepta),  aut  ab  ipsis  Apostolis, 
Spiritu  Sancto  dictante,  quasi  per  manus  tradita;  ad  nos  u.sque  ])erven- 
erunt :  orthodoxorum  Patrum  exempla  secuta,  omnes  libros  tarn  vete- 
ris  quam  novi  Testamenti,  cum  utriu«iue  unus  Deus  sit  auctor,  nee 
non  traditiones  ipsas,  tum  ad  fidum  tum  ad  mores  pertinentes,  tan- 
quam  vel  ore  tenus  a  Christo,  vel  a  Sjnritu  Sancto  dictatas,  et  continua 
successione  in  Ecclesia  catholica  conservatas  pari  i)ietatis  aifectu  ac 
reverentia  suscipit  et  veneratur.  Sacrorum  vero  librorum  indicem 
buic  decreto  ad.scribendum  censuit ;  ne  cui  dubitatio  suboriri  ])Ossit, 
qiiinam  sint,  qui  ab  ijisa  synodo  suscipiuntur,  sunt  vero  infra  scrii)ti. 
[JlcrefoUoics  the  list  containiitg  the  hooka  i/nii  olijtet  to.]  Si  quis  autem 
libros  ipsos  integros  cum  omnibus  suis  ))artibus,  juout  in  Ecclesia  cath- 
olica legi  consuevenuit,  et  in  veteri  vulgata  Latina  editione  habentur, 
pro  .sacris  et  canonicis  non  susceperit,  et  traditiones  i)ra;dictas  sciens  et 
prudcns  contempserit;  anathema  .sit." 

"The  holy  oecumenical  and  general  Council  of  Trent,  lawfully  as- 
seml>led  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  three  aforesaid  Legates  of  tlie  A])os- 
tolic  See  presiding  therein,  having  this  always  in  view,  that  errors 


758  APPENDIX    B. 

lieing  taken  away,  the  purity  of  that  gospel  should  be  preserved  in  the 
C'liurch,  which,  promised  by  the  prophets  in  the  Holy  Scriiitures,  our 
Loid  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  first  promulgated  with  His  own 
mouth,  and  afterwards  commanded  should  be  preached  by  His  Apostles 
to  every  creature  as  the  source  of  every  saving  trath  and  moral  disci- 
pline ;  and  clearly  seeing  that  this  truth  and  discipline  is  contained  iu 
the  written  books  and  in  the  unwritten  traditions,  which,  received  by 
the  Apostles  from  the  mouth  of  Christ  himself  or  from  the  Apostles 
themselves,  dictated  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  them,  have  come  do\vn 
even  to  us,  delivered  as  it  were  from  hand  to  hand  ;  following  the  ex- 
ample of  the  orthodox  Fathers,  receives  with  due  piety  and  reverence, 
and  venerates,  all  the  boohs  as  well  of  the  Old  as  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, since  one  God  is  the  author  of  both,  and  also  those  traditions 
appertaining  to  faith  and  morals  which  have  been  held  in  the  Cath- 
olic Church  in  continued  succession,  as  coming  from  the  mouth  of 
Christ  or  dictated  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  has  moreover  thought 
proper  to  annex  to  this  decree  a  catalogue  of  the  Sacred  Books,  lest 
any  doubt  might  arise  which  are  the  books  received  by  this  Council. 
They  are  the  following  [here  follows  the  list,  containinr/  the  books  to 
ichich  entirely  or  in  part  you  object).  Now,  if  anj'  one  does  not  re- 
ceive as  sacred  and  canonical  those  books  entire,  with  all  their  parts, 
as  they  have  been  usually  read  in  the  Catholic  Church,  and  are  found 
in  the  old  Latin  vulgate  edition,  and  shall  knowingly  and  industriou.*ly 
contemn  the  aforesaid  traditions,  let  him  be  anathema."  Sessio 
quarta  celehrata  die  viii.  Mens  April.,  31DXL  YI. 

This  decree,  you  perceive,  reverend  sir,  treats  of  the  inspired  Scriii- 
tures  and  the  unwritten  traditions.  Your  essay  takes  up  the  first 
topic :  I  leave  the  second,  then,  without  any  remark. 

From  this  document  it  appears  at  first  glance  that  the  Coimcil  de- 
sired to  draw  up  for  the  use  of  the  faithful  a  Canon  or  catalogue  of  the 
in.spired  Books,  and  that  they  inserted  therein  those  works  which  they 
were  convinced  had  ever  been  looked  upon  by  the  universal  Church 
as  sacred  and  inspired.  It  is  a  doctrine  of  our  Church,  sustained  by 
the  arguments  at  which  I  have  hinted  above,  that  Almighty  God  has 
promised  never  to  permit  error  under  such  circumstances  to  be  taught 
instead  of  truth.  Hence  the  Council  looked  upon  that  decree  as  deci- 
sive, and  as  such  it  has  been  and  is  received  by  the  Catholic  Chuivh 
throughout  the  world.  Were  any  Catholic  to  refuse,  he  would  be  sep- 
arated from  her  communion.  She  would  no  longer  recognize  in  him  a 
sheep  of  her  own  true  fold :  before  the  tribunal  of  God  he  would  stand 
or  fall,  according  as  in  his  own  conscience  he  was  really  more  or  le.<s 
guilty  or  innocent  of  a  violation  of  His  supreme  command.s.  This  is 
the  meaning  of  the  phrase  borrowed  from  the  Scripture,  anathema  sit— 
let  him  be  anathema— and  used  in  everv  aire  of  Christianity.     You 


FIRST    LETTER   OF    A.    P.    F.  759 

yourself,  reverend  sir,  have  gone  as  far  as  you  charge  the  Fathers  with 
going  when  you  say  that  if  tlie  books  in  question  are  uninspired,  those 
who  receive  them  "run  the  risk  of  eternal  damnation."  In  your 
essay  you  declare  that  they  are  uninspired.  The  application  is  ob- 
vious. 

Ilalhun,  a  Protestant  writer,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Literature 
of  Europe,  has  the  following  passage  :  "No  general  council  ever  con- 
tained so  many  persons  of  eminent  learning  and  ability  as  that  of 
Trent ;  nor  is  there  ground  for  believing  that  any  other  investigated 
the  questions  before  it  with  so  much  i)atience,  acuteness,  temper  and 
desire  of  truth."  I  might  quote  from  Roscoe  and  other  Protestants, 
who  were  somewhat  an  fait  with  the  continental  Catholic  literature  of 
that  period,  similar,  if  not  stronger,  testimonies  in  their  favour.  Con- 
sidering their  decree  concerning  the  Scriptures  apart  from  the  religious 
value  with  which  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church  invests  it,  I 
cannot  think  it  deserves  to  be  treated  with  such  unceremonious  disre- 
spect as  your  essay  exhibits.  Hundreds  of  the  most  learned  men  in 
Europe,  after  patient  examination  and  a  thorough  investigation  of  all 
the  evidence  they  coiild  find  on  the  subject,  decide  unanimou.sly  that  a 
certain  fact  took  place ;  for,  on  their  own  showing,  the  decree  is  based 
on  such  a  decision.  You,  reverend  sir,  think  they  were  mistaken. 
Still,  as  literary  opponents,  you  should  feel  they  are  no  despicable  ad- 
versaries. If  it  pleases  you,  as  a  divine,  to  consider  them  as  a  relig- 
ious body,  you  see  the  most  venerable,  learned  and  zealous  pastors 
of  a  church  numbering  150,000,000  in  the  fold,  assembling  together, 
that  by  nmtual  advice,  after  due  consultation  and  earnest,  persevering 
jirayer,  they  may  be  enlightened  by  Him  whose  ministers  they  hold 
themselves  to  be,  so  as  fiiithfully  to  instioict,  on  a  most  important 
point,  the  multitudes  that  look  to  them  for  guidance  in  the  way  of 
eternal  salvation.  If  I  could  believe  that,  notwithstanding,  they  fell 
into  error,  while  I  lamented  it,  I  would  still  resi)ect,  revere  them.  I 
would  often  turn  to  that  assembly  as  a  scene  on  which  a  Christian 
.'<oul  should  love  to  dwell,  and  learn  from  them  earnest  zeal  and  fer- 
vent piety. 

The  (piestion  between  us  is,  Did  they  fall  into  error  or  not? 

You  remark  that  the  otiiis  jyrohamU  lies  on  us,  and  that  the  pre- 
Mimi)tion  is  against  the  inspiration  of  those  books  you  combat  until 
satisfactory  evidence  ho.  brought  forward  to  prove  that  point.  This, 
reverend  sir,  is  true,  not  only  in  reference  to  those  books,  but  to  all 
others  which  it  may  be  contended  are  inspired.  Defect  of  such  proof 
would  be  fatal  to  the  cause  of  any  book. 

Now  I  "a.'w^ert,  and  shall  endeavour  to  prove,"  that  the  only  argu 
nients  which  establi.xh  the  insjMration  of  those  books  which  you  admit 
are  inspired,  in  that  manner,  and  to  the  extent  which  common  .«ense 


760  APPENDIX    B. 

and  the  nature  of  Christianity  require  that  it  should  be  proved,  will 
also  establish  the  inspiration  of  the  books  you  repudiate ;  and  that  if 
these  are  to  be  rejected  because  of  the  insufficiency  of  those  argu- 
ments in  their  support,  the  others  must  be  at  least  generally  rejected ; 
the  conclusive  arguments,  at  least  for  the  generality  of  Christians, 
being,  as  I  shall  show,  identically  the  same  in  both  cases. 

I  need  not  say  that  the  question.  What  writings  are  divinely  inspired? 
has  not  been  debated  only  within  this  and  the  last  two  centuries. 
There  has  ever  been  great  difference  on  this  head  among  those  who 
professed  to  hold  a  revelation  from  Almighty  God.  The  Sadducees 
and  the  Samaritans  rejected  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  ex- 
cept those  of  Moses.  The  Nazarenes,  on  the  other  hand,  rejected  the 
Pentateuch.  The  Simonians,  the  Basilidians,  the  Marcionists  with  the 
IManichaeans,  the  Patricians,  the  Severians,  the  Albigenses  and  some 
others,  rejected  the  entire  Old  Testament.  IMany  others  have  rejected 
various  books.  Nor  has  the  New  Testament  escaped  a  similar  fate. 
The  four  Gospels  were  rejected  by  the  Manichaeans ;  each  book  had  its 
impugners  down  to  the  Apocalypse  or  book  of  Revelations,  which  you 
well  know  was  rejected  by  many  who  were  and  are  still  accounted  to 
have  been  orthodox.  The  Rationalists  of  Germany  would  smile  with 
contempt  and  pity  on  the  delusion  which  in  the  effulgence  of  theh 
philosophical  Christianity  would  believe  in  any  supernatural  aid  given 
to  the  scriptural  writers.  The  Deist  among  ourselves  denies  altogether 
the  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  Nay,  according  to  the  principles  you  lay 
down,  there  is  a  time  when  every  Protestant  must  doubt  it.  You  are 
not,  you  say,  at  "liberty  to  believe"  the  books  you  attack  to  be  in- 
spii-ed  "until  clear  and  decided  proofs  of  the  fact  are  brought  for- 
ward." Neither  on  the  same  ground  is  any  Protestant  "  at  liberty  to 
believe  any  documents  to  be  inspired,"  but  is  solemnly  bound  to 
"treat  them  as  he  treats  all  other  writings,  merely  as  human  produc- 
tions, until  clear  and  cogent  arguments  for  their  Divine  origin  are  sub- 
mitted to  his  understanding."  I  think  it  important  that  this  high 
"vantage-ground,"  to  use  j'our  own  exjiression  in  the  argument  on 
this  subject,  "should  be  fully  apprehended;"  for,  in  order  to  meet 
your  preamble  more  directly,  I  will  base  on  it  the  following  remarks, 
which  I  offer  to  your  serious  consideration,  and  that  of  those  who.se 
sense  of  equity  or  whose  curiosity  may  lead  them  to  examine  what  a 
Catholic  can  say  on  the  subject. 

We  cannot  be  called  on  to  believe  any  proposition  not  sustained  by 
adequate  proof  When  Almighty  God  deigned  to  insjiire  the  works 
contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  He  intended  they  should  be  held 
and  believed  to  be  inspired.  Therefore  there  does  exist  some  adecjuate 
proof  of  their  inspiration.  The  nature  and  scheme  of  Christianity  re- 
quire that  not  one  only  in  a  thousand,  but  all  those  to  whom  Chris- 


FIRST    LETTER    OF    A.    P.    F.  761 

tianity  is  properly  announced,  of  whatsoever  age  or  condition  tlicy  be, 
should  believe  it.  Therefore,  that  proof  of  inspiration  which  is  adai)tcd 
to  all  those  ages  and  conditions  must  be  one  which  will  strike  the 
understanding  of  the  wandering  Indian  and  the  unlettered  negro 
slave  as  clearly  and  as  cogently  as  that  of  the  enlightened  professor. 

Now,  reverend  sir,  there  may  be  many  ways  of  seeking  to  ascertain 
the  fact  of  the  inspiration  of  any  writer  or  writers.  They  may,  how- 
ever, be  all  reduced  to  the  four  following  methods : 

1.  Is  every  man,  no  matter  what  be  his  condition,  to  investigate  by 
his  own  labour  and  research,  and  duly  examine  the  arguments  that 
have  been  or  can  be  alleged  for  and  against  the  several  books  which  it 
is  asserted  are  insjjired,  and  on  the  strength  of  that  examination  to 
decide  for  himself  with  absolute  certainty  what  books  are  and  what  are 
not  inspired  ? 

2.  Is  every  individual  to  receive  books  as  inspired,  or  to  reject  them 
as  uninspired,  according  to  the  decision  of  persons  he  esteems  duly 
qualified  by  erudition  and  sound  judgment  to  determine  that  question 
accurately? 

3.  Must  he  learn  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  from  some 
individual  whom  God  commissioned  to  announce  this  fact  to  the 
world  ? 

4.  Must  he  learn  it  from  a  body  of  individuals,  to  whom,  in  their 
collective  capacity,  God  has  given  authority  to  make  an  unerring  de- 
cision on  this  subject? 

I  might  perhaps  add  a  fifth  method — that  each  one  be  informed 
what  books  are  divinely  inspired  by  his  private  spirit.  But  I  omit  it, 
as,  were  it  true,  it  would  be  supei-fluous,  if  not  a  criminal  intrusion  on 
the  province  God  woidd  have  reserved  to  himself,  to  attem])t  to  i)rove 
or  disapprove,  when  our  duty  would  be  simply  to  await  in  patience 
this  revelation  to  everj'  particular  individual.  You  are  not  a  member 
of  the  Society  of  Friends,  and  your  essay  is  not  an  expose  of  the  teach- 
ing of  your  private,  s-jv'rit,  but  an  effort  to  appeal  to  argument. 

To  some  one  of  tho.se  four  methods  every  plan  of  proving  the  in- 
spiration of  the  Scriptures  can  be  reduced.  You  for  yourself  u.se  the 
fir.st,  apjiealing  to  the  testimonies  of  antiquity  in  support  of  your 
proposition  and  to  arguments  from  seeming  internal  imperfections. 
One  who  would  rest  .^ati.-fied  with  your  dissertittioii,  believing  that 
your  erudition  and  judgment  nmst  lead  you  to  a  sufficient  ac<|uaintanco 
with  those  testimonies  and  to  the  proper  decision  thereon,  and  who 
would  consequently  seek  nothing  more,  but  unhesitatingly  embrace 
your  conclusion,  would  be  using  the  .second.  The  third  is  i)lain  of 
itself     The  fourth,  that  .sustained  by  Catholics,  "  you  desj^.-^e.'' 

Reverend  sir,  you  admit  that  there  do  exist  divinely  inspired  writ- 
ings, and  that  Almighty  God  requires  individuals  of  every  nation, 


762  APPENDIX    B. 

clime  and  condition  to  receive  them  as  inspired.  Those  individuals 
are  "solemnly  bound"  to  reject  that  inspiration,  to  "treat  those 
works  as  they  treat  all  other  writings,  merely  as  human  productions — 
of  no  uiore  authority  than  Seneca's  Letters  or  Tvilly's  Offices"  (if 
they  ever  heard  of  them) — "  until  clear  and  cogent  arguments  for  their 
Divine  origin  are  submitted  to  their  understandings " — "until  they 
are  proved  to  be  inspired."  You  are  forced,  therefore,  to  allow  that 
God  has  provided  such  proof,  suited  to  the  capacity  of  all  those  indi- 
viduals, and  which  when  within  their  reach.  He  requires  them  to  use. 
That  proof  must  be  found  in  the  use  of  some  one  of  the  four  above- 
mentioned  methods. 

Let  us  examine  them  severally,  and  see  which  is  in  truth  suited  to 
the  means  and  inteUigencc  of  men  of  every  condition. 

I.  Is  every  man,  no  matter  what  be  his  condition  and  means,  capa- 
ble of  investigating  by  his  own  labour  and  research,  and  duly  examin- 
ing the  arguments  that  have  been  or  can  be  alleged  for  and  against 
the  several  books  which  it  is  asserted  are  inspired,  and  on  the  strength 
of  that  examination  of  deciding  for  himself,  with  absolute  certainty 
and  unen-ing  accuracy,  what  books  are  and  what  are  not  inspired? 
This  question,  methinks,  need  not  be  asked  a  second  time. 

The  arguments  in  this  course  would  be  of  two  classes,  external  and 
internal ;  either  or  both  of  which  would  form  matter  for  investigation. 
He  might  seek,  as  you  have  endeavoured  to  do,  whether  there  exists  a 
sufficient  mass  of  testimony  to  establish  the  fact  or  facts  that  God  did, 
at  certain  times  and  on  certain  occasions,  exercise  over  particular 
writers  the  supernatural  influence  of  inspiration :  or,  from  a  consider- 
ation of  the  perfection  of  the  Scriptures,  he  might  conclude  that  they 
were  above  the  power  of  unaided  men,  and  therefore  must  be  of  Di- 
vine origin.  To  perform  the  first  properly,  he  must  be  deeply  versed 
in  the  Latin,  the  Greek  and  the  Hebrew,  perhaps,  too,  in  several 
modern  languages;  must  have  at  his  command  a  more  extensive 
library  than,  I  believe,  Charleston  can  boast  of;  must  spend  conse- 
quently many  long  years  of  study  in  acquiring  those  languages  and 
obtaining  authors,  in  searching  out  the  thousand  and  one  testimonies 
scattered  through  a  hundred  musty  tomes,  and  in  acquiring  that 
thorough  knowledge  of  times,  of  men,  of  writii]gs  which  will  enable 
him  to  judge  of  the  credibility  of  those  witnesses ;  must  finally  possess 
an  unrivalled,  almost  supernatural,  accuracy  of  judgment,  to  reconcile 
this  mass  of  conflicting  statements  and  distinguish  which  are  worthy 
and  which  unworthy  of  credit — to  conclude  confidently  and  evidently 
in  favour  of  or  against  the  inspiration  of  the  books  examined.  The 
second  requires  a  thorough  acquaintance  with  the  Scriptures  in  the 
original  Hebrew,  Greek  and  Chaldean,  and  in  the  ancient  versions  in 
Samaritan,  Copt,  Arabic,  Syriac,  Greek  and  Latin,  and  with  the  an- 


FIRST    LETTER    OF    A.    P.    F.  763 

cient  manuscripts;  and  the  uljility  to  apply  to  all  this  tlie  subtle  rules 
of  refined  criticism,  in  oriler  to  determine,  in  the  first  place,  as  far  as 
can  be  ascertained,  the  exact  language  and  meaning  of  the  sacred 
writers ;  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  abilities  and  acquirements  of 
each  writer  and  the  state  of  science  and  already  revealed  religion  in 
his  country  and  age,  in  order  to  see  to  what  extent  of  perfection  his 
own  powers  with  such  aids  could  naturally  carry  him  ;  the  faculty  also 
of  duly  appreciating  the  beauties  of  the  sacred  writings,  and  that 
knowledge  of  chemistry,  of  natural  history,  of  geology,  of  the  history 
of  nations,  and  of  almost  every  science  which  may  enable  him  fully 
and  satisfactorily  to  refute  all  the  objections  brought  from  these  differ- 
ent sources  against  the  intrinsic  tiiith,  and  consequently  internal  evi- 
dence, of  the  Divine  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  Need  I  say  it  is 
all  important  he  should  be  able  to  possess  and  perase  the  books  on 
whose  inspiration  he  is  thus  to  decide? 

Whether  any  investigation  in  either  or  both  classes,  carried  on  even 
under  the  most  favourable  circumstances,  will  unerringly  prove  the  in- 
spiration of  any  books  of  the  Scripture,  I  leave  to  be  mooted  by  those 
who  choose  to  undertake  the  task.  The  Editors  of  the  Miscellany 
have  lately  published  several  articles  on  the  subject,  under  the  head 
Profesfant  Evidence  of  the  Inspiration  of  Scripture.  For  my  imme- 
diate jmrpose  it  is  enough  to  ask  you  and  my  readers  to  reflect  for  one 
moment  on  the  past  and  present  condition  of  the  va.st  majority  of  those 
millions  who  call  themselves  Christians,  whom  God  requires  to  receive 
the  Scriptures,  and  who  consequently  have  "clear  and  cogent  argu- 
ments for  their  Divine  origin."  Is  it  n^t  notorious,  the  great,  the 
overwhelming  majority  of  Christians  have  ever  been  and  must  con- 
tinue incapacitated  by  their  position  in  the  world,  their  want  of  time, 
of  learning,  of  means,  from  even  attempting  such  an  investigation? 
"Was  it  not,  for  ages  before  the  discovery  of  the  art  of  printing,  mor- 
ally imi^ossible,  on  account  of  the  labour  and  tediousness  of  copjnng 
such  volumes  with  the  pen,  their  consequent  scarcity  and  the  enor- 
mous price  at  which  alone  they  could  be  procured,  for  mo.'st  individuals 
to  obtain  even  copies  of  the  Holy  Scrijitures  themselves,  much  more 
of  those  works  necessary  for  such  an  examination?  Not  to  leave  our 
own  State,  are  not  more  than  one-half  of  her  jioinilation  debarred  by 
law  from  learning  to  read?  Of  the  .550,000  souls  in  South  Carolina, 
think  you  there  are  550  or  even  50,  who  have  the  time,  the  means,  the 
ability,  the  oi)|)ortunity  of  devoting  themselves  to  this  laborious  t;isk  ? 

If  every  individual  is  bound  to  reject  the  inspiration  of  a  book 
luitil  it  is  clearly  and  evidently  proved  to  his  mind  to  be  ins])ired.  and 
if  such  proof  can  only  be  obtained  through  that  personal  examination, 
then  must  the  negro  and  the  Indian,  and  the  ])Oor  and  the  unlettered, 
and  the  dailv  labourer  toiling  from  simrise  to  sunset  for  his  l)read— . 


764  APPENDIX    B. 

then  must  the  overwhelming  hl\jority  of  Christians  reject  the 
Scriptures ;  then  were  all  those  who,  deprived  of  worldly  learning, 
looked  in  their  simplicity  to  God  for  saving  wisdom,  and  fondly  be- 
lieved they  possessed  it  in  those  sacred  oracles  of  truth — I  tremble  to 
follow  the  awful  train  of  thought.  Reverend  sir,  the  first  cannot  be 
the  method  appointed  by  Almighty  God  whereby  all  should  learn 
with  unerring  accuracy  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptm-es.  Let  us  take 
up  the  second. 

II.  Is  every  individual  to  receive  books  as  inspired,  or  to  reject  them 
as  uninspired,  according  to  the  decision  of  persons  he  esteems  suf- 
ficiently qualified  by  erudition  and  sound  judgment  to  determine  that 
question  accurately  ?  I  apprehend  a  candid  mind  can  easily  answer 
this  question. 

Is  such  a  course  adapted  to  all  Christians?  Would  it  lead  them 
with  unerring  accuracy  to  the  truth  ?  If  it  be  the  means  appointed 
by  Almighty  God,  both  questions  must  be  answered  in  the  affirmative. 
If  common  sense  and  experience  show  that  either  or  both  must  be  an- 
swered negatively,  it  is  not. 

Those  who  possess  not  learning  themselves  can  seldom  or  never 
form  a  proper  estimate  of  the  learning  and  critical  judgment  of  a  truly 
erudite  person  whom  perhaps  they  have  scarcely  looked  on.  Whole 
communities  may  be  deceived  on  this  point.  Need  I  cite  the  case  of 
Voltaire,  once  extolled  by  France  and  the  soi-disant  Philosophers  of 
Europe  as  a  very  Briareus  of  erudition,  and  now,  that  in  France  re- 
ligion and  science  happily  go  hand  in  hand  and  execrations  of  ?'/;// ane 
are  no  longer  passports  to  cqjebrity,  justly  derided  as  a  puny,  puff'ed-up 
smatterer?  The  individual  thus  seeking  the  light  of  others  (besides 
surrendering  his  Protestant  privilege  of  judging  for  himself  and  pin- 
ning his  faith  to  their  sleeves)  is  in  most  cases  unable  to  judge  with 
certainty  and  accuracy  on  the  sufficiency  of  the  qualifications  of  those 
learned  persons,  frequently  of  that  single  individual,  within  his  limited 
circle  of  knowledge.  Of  the  learned  in  other  lands  and  of  their  de- 
cisions he  knows  nothing.  Even  did  he,  you  are  aware  every  variety 
of  decisions  would  be  offisred  him.  I  cannot  be  brought  to  believe,  and 
I  am  sure  you  will  not  ask  me  to  believe,  that  all  erudition  and  somid 
judgment  is  confined  to  Germany,  Holland,  Great  Britain,  the  United 
States,  Denmark  and  Sweden,  and  is  there  parceled  out  among  those 
who  may  chance  to  agree  with  you  in  your  list  of  inspired  books.  I 
cannot  believe,  for  example,  that  our  lamented  bishop,  for  whom  otu- 
tears  j^et  flow,  was  either  unsound  in  judgment  or  deficient  in  erudi- 
tion. Not  to  speak  of  esteemed  friends  who,  if  I  err  not,  are  yet  un- 
willing to  admit  any  inspired  work,  I  know  many  Catholics  in  the 
United  States,  whose  talents  and  years  of  study  render  them,  as  they 
rendered  him,  the  ornaments  of  the  community  in  which  they  move. 


FIRST    LETTER   OF    A.    P.    F.  765 

I  believe  that  "La  belle  France"  and  sunny  Italy  jinxluce  many 
champions  who  i)ress  forward  to  the  van  in  the  cause  of  science. 
I  know,  it  is  the  custom  of  some  to  rail  against  those  countries  as 
buried  in  ignorance  and  darkness,  at  least  in  matters  of  religion.  But 
such  language  ever  recalls  forcibly  to  my  mind  the  fable  of  the 
ant,  who,  till  perchance  she  wandered  forth  from  her  hill,  thought 
nothing  could  be  perfect  on  earth  but  what  met  her  limited  vision 
within  a  few  yards  of  her  home.  Were  j'ou,  reverend  sir,  to  devote 
a  leisure  hour  or  so  to  examining  the  biography  of  those  prelates  who 
assisted  at  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  whose  authority  and  decisions 
you  so  heartily  "despise,"  you  would  find  them  eminent  and  worthy 
of  respect  for  their  sincere  piety  and  vast  erudition,  albeit  their  de- 
cision on  the  books  of  Tnhit,  Judith^  etc.,  was  different  from  yours. 

If  in  receiving  books  as  inspired,  or  not,  the  ignorant  and  unlearned 
are,  according  to  the  will  of  Grod,  to  abide  by  the  decisions  of  those 
learned  individuals  to  whom  they  have  access,  or  whom  in  their  sim- 
plicity they  deem  qualified  to  act  as  their  guides,  then  must  we  be 
content  to  say  that  God  requires  some  to  receive  as  inspired,  and  others 
to  reject  as  uninspired,  the  same  books.  The  second  course  seems  im- 
practicable. Were  it  not,  it  would  lead  to  contradictory  conclusions, 
and  therefore  to  error.  Such  cannot  be  the  means  appointed  by 
Divine  Wisdom,  whereby  all  the  faithful  shall  truly  learn  what  books 
of  the  Scrijiture  are  really  inspired.     Pass  we  on  to  the  third.    . 

III.  Did  God  ordain  that  all  Christians  should  learn  wliat  Scrip- 
tures were  divinely  inspired  from  some  individual,  whom  lie  commis- 
sioned to  announce  this  truth  to  the  world  ?  This  is  the  next  inquiry 
which  awaits  us.  If  He  did,  then  will  the  proofs  of  that  commission, 
and  the  declaration  so  made,  be  such  as  the  mind  of  every  Christian 
of  whatsoever  condition  can  seize. 

Our  Divine  Saviour,  taking  him  simply  in  his  hi.storical  character, 
proved  his  commission  from  Heaven  by  miracles.  But  He  left  no 
Canon  or  catalogue  of  inspired  works.  The  Apostles,  too,  jiroved  their 
Divine  commission.  There  might  be  some  discussion  res])ecting  the 
works  attributed  to  them,  but  neither  did  they  leave  a  Canon  in  their 
writinirs.  But  did  not  the  Saviour  or  the  Ajiostles  leave  such  a  Canon, 
though  unrecorded,  to  their  followers,  to  be  by  them  transmitted  to 
future  generations,  and  which  all  are  bound  to  receive  ?  This  suppo- 
sition, besides  overturning  another  fundamental  axiom  of  Protestants, 
that  all  thiiif/n  necessaiy  to  be  believed  are  recorded  in  the  Scrijitures. 
turns  over  the  question  to  method  the  first,  which  I  have  already  dis- 
posed of 

After  the  time  of  the  Apostles  we  know  of  no  one  who  claimed  and 
proved  an  extraordinary  commission  from  God  to  establish  a  Canon 
of  Scri]>ture. 


766  APPENDIX    B. 

Before  the  coming  of  Christ,  Esdras  is  said  to  have  esta])lished  a 
Canon  for  the  use  of  the  Jewish  nation.  It  has  been  disputed  whether 
he  did  so  or  not,  whether  he  did  so  bj'  his  own  authority  or  by  the 
authority  of  God,  whether  alone  or  in  conjunction  with  and  as  member 
of  the  Sanhedrim.  It  has  been  asserted,  too,  that  in  that  catalogue 
were  originally  contained  books  which  in  the  vicissitudes  of  that  nation 
perished  in  the  Hebrew,  and  are  consequently  no  longer  in  the  Jewish 
Canon,  which  consists  only  of  books  preserved  in  that  language.  I 
need  not  trouble  you  with  my  opinions  on  those  different  points.  More 
veteran  scholars  than  I  have  found  some  of  them  insoluble  enigmas. 
I  apprehend  a  certain  and  accurate  answer  to  them  all  would,  at  least, 
be  far  beyond  the  capacity  of  the  majority  of  Christians,  and  yet  this 
much  would  be  indispensably  necessary  if  they  are  to  have  any  Divine 
authority  even  for  the  Jewish  Canon.  At  all  events,  that  decision  of 
Esdras  would  not  bear  on  the  inspiration  of  books  then  unwritten,  a.s 
were  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  so  important  to  Christians, 
and  nearly  all  the  works  the  inspiration  of  which  your  essay  contro- 
verts. 

The  third  method,  then,  cannot  be  admitted,  because  no  such  clear, 
unequivocal  testimony  of  the  entire  number  of  inspired  books  proceeding 
from  an  individual  who  is  evidently  and  undoubtedly  commissioned  of 
Grod  exists,  and  because  in  the  case  of  Esdras  the  most  we  can  say  is 
that  the  substance  of  the  declaration  is  tinged  with  doubt,  while  the 
fact  that  he  made  it  and  his  authority  for  doing  so  cannot  be  ascer- 
tained by  the  vast  majority  of  Christians. 

IV.  The  fourth  method  alone  now  remains — namely,  that  God  has 
ordained  that  each  Christian  shall  learn  what  books  are  inspired  from 
a  body  of  individuals,  to  whom,  in  their  collective  capacity,  He  has 
given  authority  to  make  an  unerring  decision  on  that  point;  and  we 
find  ourselves  reduced  to  the  alternative  of  either  admitting  this,  or  of 
saying  that  while  God  requires  all  to  believe  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scripture,  and  binds  them  to  reject  it  unless  it  be  clearly  proved.  He 
has  left  them  without  any  such  proof 

Would  such  a  method,  if  established,  be  adapted  to  all  Christians? 
Would  it  lead  them  to  truth  ? 

One  of  such  a  body  presenting  himself  to  instruct  a  Christian  or  an 
infidel  would  first  inform  him  that  a  number  of  .vears  ago  a  Person 
known  by  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  appeared  in  Judea  and  e.stablished 
a  new  religion.  Sufficient  motives  of  ci-edibility  can  easily  be  brought 
forward  to  induce  the  novice  to  believe  this.  He  proceeds  to  state 
that  Christ  proved  His  heavenly  commission  to  do  so  by  frequent  pub- 
lic and  manifest  miracles.  It  will  not  require  much  to  establish  in 
those  works  certain  striking  characteristics,  of  themselves  clearly  indic- 
ative of  a  miraculous  nature.     Hence  common  sense  is  forced  to  con- 


FIRST    LETTER    OF    A.    P.    F.  767 

elude  that  the  religion  established  by  Christ  was  Dicine,  springing 
from  God  and  binding  on  man.  So  far  we  find  nothing  above  or  con- 
trary to  the  means  and  understanding  even  of  an  Indian  or  a  negro. 
Our  instructor  then  states  that  Christ,  in  order  to  secure  the  extension 
of  His  religion  to  every  people  and  its  perpetuation  to  the  end  of  time, 
selected  from  among  His  followers  certain  persons,  who,  with  their 
successors,  were  in  His  name  and  by  the  same  authority  He  i)o.s- 
sessed  to  go  forth  and  teach  all  nations  all  that  He  had  liiniself  taught 
in  Judea.'  Such  a  delegation  is  by  no  means  unnatural  or  strange, 
and  there  could  be  found  no  novice,  however  rude  and  uncultivated, 
whose  mind  could  not  grasp  it,  and  who  would  not  be  led  to  believe  it 
on  sufficiently  credible  testimony.  The  next  lesson  will  be  that  the 
Saviour  assured  them  that  they  would  be  opposed  ;  that  others  would 
rise  up  to  teach  errors  whom  He  sent  not,  and  that  some  of  their  own 
number  would  fall  away,  but  that  God  would  recall  to  their  minds  all 
things  He  had  taught  them  ;  -  that  He  would  send  them  the  Spirit  of 
Tmth,  who  should  abide  with  them  for  ever'  and  should  teach  them 
all  tmth;*  that  He  himself  would  be  with  them  while  fulfilling  that 
commission  all  days,  even  to  the  consummation  of  tlie  world ;  ^  and 
that  the  gates  of  hell,  the  fiercest  conflicts  of  enemies,  should  never 
prevail  against  that  Church*  which  He  sent  them  to  found  and  ever  to 
instract.  For  stronger  and  more  explicit  evidence  of  this,  he  might,  if 
necessary  and  convenient,  recur  to  certain  histories  written  by  persons 
who  lived  at  the  same  time  with  the  Saviour,  and  were  for  years  in 
daily  and  intimate  intercourse  with  Him — who  could  not  mistake  such 
simple  points,  and  the  accuracy  of  whose  reports  is  universally  acknow- 
ledged and  can  easily  be  substantiated. 

"All  this,"  replies  the  novice,  "my  own  common  sense  would  lead 
me  to  expect.  The  persecutions  and  errors  you  refer  to  are  but  the 
natural  workings  of  the  passions  of  men,  such  as  experience  shows 
them  in  every-day  life.  It  would  be  strange,  indeed,  that  while  men 
change  and  contradict  everything  else,  they  should  not  seek  to  change 
and  contradict  God's  doctrines  and  precepts  too.  If  He  willed  that  the 
religion  of  Christ  should  endure  always — that  is,  that  the  doctrines  He 
revealed  should  be  ever  preached  and  believed,  the  jirecejjts  He  gave 
ever  announced  and  obeyed — it  was  necessary  to  make  some  adequate 
provision  against  this  error  and  change-seeking  tendency  of  man.  If 
those  doctrines  and  precepts  are  to  be  learned  from  persons  He  ap- 
pointed to  teach  in  His  name  and  by  His  authority,  as  delegates  whom, 
in  virtue  of  the  power  given  Him,  He  sent  as  He  was  .«ent  by  the 
Father,  that  i)rovision  must  evidently  and  necessarily  be  directed  to 
preserve  the  purity  of  their  teaching,  to  preserve  that  body  of  teachers 

»  Matt,  .xxviii.  19,  20.  2  John  xiv.  26.  »  John  .\iv.  IC,  17. 

*  John  xiv.  20;  xvi.  13.  *  Matt,  xxviii.  20.  «  Matt.  xvi.  18. 


768  APPENDIX    B. 

by  the  power  of  God  from  eiTor,  and  to  make  them,  in  fact,  '  teach  all 
things  whatsoever  He  had  taught  them, '  Unaided  reason  almost  as- 
sures me  this  is  the  course  the  Saviour  would  adopt.  The  evidence 
you  lay  before  me  is  satisfactory  and  worthy  of  credit.     I  assent." 

The  missionary  would  then  inform  his  pupil  that  the  body  of  teach- 
ers thus  guaranteed  to  teach  all  truth  "for  ever"  "to  all  nations"  and 
"  all  days,  even  to  the  consummation  of  the  world,"  and  consequently 
ever  to  exist  and  to  teach,  does  in  fact  exist,  claiming  and  exercising 
that  i)ower — that  at  the  present  day  it  consists  of  such  individuals,  of 
whom  he  is  a  commissioned  teacher.  If  asked,  he  would  probably  be 
able  to  point  out  the  predecessors  of  those  persons  in  the  last  and 
every  preceding  age,  for  a  line  of  succession  would  have  come  down 
from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  claiming  and  exercising  that  authority. 
He  might  state  that  one  hundred  and  seventy-five  millions  of  e^ery  na- 
tion— from  New  Zealand  to  China,  from  Van  Diemen's  Land  to  the 
Canadian  Indians,  from  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  to  Siberia — admit 
and  subject  themselves  to  this  authority  ;  that  this  immense  multitude 
is  owing  to  no  sudden  increase,  but  that  millions  on  millions  in  every 
age  have  done  the  same.  The  novice  might  inquire  whether  the  pre- 
dictions concerning  persecutions  and  eiTor  had  yet  been  fulfilled.  In 
answer,  the  past  and  present  persecutions  might  be  laid  before  him,  and 
the  long  list  of  those  who  in  various  ages  opposed  the  teaching  of  that 
body  by  every  imaginable  shade  of  eiTor,  but  with  all  their  efi"orts 
could  never  overturn  or  suppress  it. 

"Truly,"  exclaims  the  pupil,  "  the  gates  of  hell  shall  never  prevail 
against  the  Church  of  Christ.  The  existence  of  that  body,  its  history, 
its  claims  recognized  by  such  multitudes,  would  of  themselves,  had  I 
no  other  motive  for  believing,  convince  me  of  all  the  facts  I  have  just 
admitted.  Were  they  not  true,  this  claim  would  be  unfounded— this 
body,  subject  to  the  fate  of  all  human  bodies,  would  have  long  since 
perished.  I  see  whatever  Christ  taught  must  be  true.  I  recognize  you 
as  His  commissioned  teacher.  I  believe  Him  for  his  miracles,  I 
believe  you  for  His  authority.  What  are  His  doctrines,  that  I  may 
receive  them  ?    His  precepts,  that  I  may  obey  them  ?' ' 

In  all  this  there  is  nothing  opposed  to  the  nature  or  the  powers  of 
any  man,  or  to  the  nature  of  religion.  The  facts  to  which  assent  is  asked 
are  as  simple,  and  may  be  readily  made  as  clear  and  as  certain,  as  that 
there  lived  such  a  Roman  as  Julius  Caesar,  that  he  wan-ed  in  Gaul, 
afterwards  turned  his  arms  against  his  country,  overcame  Pompey,  and 
finally  met  his  death  from  assassination.  An  appeal  is  made  to  that 
principle  implanted  in  the  human  mind  by  its  Creator,  and  among  the 
earliest  to  be  developed — confiding  reliance  on  the  statements  of  others 
— while  He  guarantees  that  through  His  almighty  providence  TRUTH 
shall  be  stated.     An  infant  would  believe,  by  force  of  that  nature  which 


FIRST   LETTER   OF  A.    P.    F.  769 

God  has  given  it,  all  I  have  proposed  and  the  doctrines  delivered  in 
consequence,  long  before  it  would  dream  of  asking  evidence  for  author- 
ity to  teach,  and  when  reason  is  sufficiently  developed  to  receive  mo- 
tives of  credibility  they  arc  already  at  hand.  We  should  ever  bear  in 
mind,  too,  that  if  this  be  the  method  atloptcd  by  Almighty  God— if  in 
rcalitA-,  as  the  hypothesis  requires,  He  speaks  to  that  individual  through 
this  teacher — His  Divine  grace  will  influence  the  mind  of  the  novice  to 
yield  a  more  ready  and  firm  assent  than  the  tendency  of  our  nature 
and  the  unaided  motives  of  human  authority  would  produce.  In  this 
system  there  is  no  room  for  that  awful  but  necessary,  inevitable  conse- 
quence of  the  axioms  of  Protestants  and  of  your  own  princii)les,  that 
in  the  life  of  every  individual  there  should  be  a  dark  void  of  infidelity 
and  unbelief  from  the  time  when,  having  attained  the  u.se  of  reason, 
he  is  able  and  most  solemnly  bound  before  his  Maker  to  judge  for  him- 
self, until  the  time  when  clear  and  cogent  arguments  for  the  inspira- 
tion of  at  least  some  one  of  the  scriptural  books  have  been  laid  before 
his  mind.  During  that  interval,  be  it  long  or  short — an  hour,  a  day, 
a  month,  a  year,  entire  lustres  or  a  whole  life — their  inspiration  is  nn- 
pwved  to  his  mind;  "clear  and  cogent  arguments  for  their  Divine 
origin  are  not  yet  submitted  to  his  understanding,"  and  hence  he  is 
"solemnly  bound"  to  "treat  them  as  he  treats  all  other  writings, 
merely  as  human  productions,"  "having  no  more  authority  than  Sen- 
eca's Letters  or  Tully's  Offices."  In  this  interval  he  is  without  an 
inspired  Bible,  and  con-sequently  cannot  believe  the  truths  of  Divine 
Revelation,  which,  on  the  broad  ground  of  Protestantism,  are  to  be 
learned  from  the  Scriptures  alone  as  the  inspired  Word  of  God ;  in 
one  word,  during  that  period  he  is  "solemnly  bound"  (shall  I  say  un- 
less "he  runs  the  risk  of  everlasting  damnation?")  to  live  a  perfect 
Infidkl.  I  know  that  this  statement  will  startle  many  of  my  readers 
— that  you  will  di.savow  it.  I  do  not  charge  Protestants  with  holding 
the  absurdity,  for  none,  as  far  as  I  know,  have  avowed  it  totulem  ver- 
bis. I  see,  however,  a  partial  adniis.-ion  in  the  practice  of  many  Prot- 
estants to  let  their  children  grow  up  without  much  religious  instruction 
becau.se  in  future  years  they  have  to  examine  and  judge  for  themselves. 
Still,  this  conclusion,  however  ab.surd  and  awful  (as  you  have  not  ad- 
vanced it  I  may,  without  infringing  the  rules  of  courtesy,  add),  how- 
ever hhisjihemous,  is  the  nece.s.sary,  unavoidable  consequence  of  your 
premises.     Such  an  inference  cannot  follow  from  truth. 

This  fourth  method  is  not  repugnant  to  the  nature  of  religion,  for 
all  true  religion  is  based  on  submission  of  the  understanding  and  the 
will  to  God  when  He  speaks  to  us  Himself— to  His  authorized  dele- 
gates when  through  them  He  deigns  to  teach.  Had  He  apjiDinted 
it,  that  body  of  individuals  so  commi.s.sioned  would  evidently  teach 

TRUTH. 

Vol.  III.— 49 


770  APPENDIX    B. 

The  foui'tli  method  alone  is  therefore  both  iiracticable  in  the  ordinary 
condition  of  the  Christian  world,  and  efficient. 

Does  there  exist  a  body  of  men  clothed  with  this  authority  guaran- 
teed by  such  a  Divine  promise  from  error?  Has  it  made  a  declaration 
setting  forth,  in  pursuance  of  that  authority,  what  works  are  tiuly 
inspired  ? 

You,  reverend  sir,  are  forced  to  the  alternative  of  either  answering 
both  questions  in  the  affirmative,  or  of  saying  that  the  overwhelming 
majority  of  Christians  are  "  solemnly  bound"  to  reject  the  Scriptures, 
and  if  they  have  admitted  them,  it  was  in  violation  of  the  will  of  God 
and  of  their  solemn  duty.     From  this  dilemma  there  is  no  escape. 

Were  I  not  unwilling  to  take  too  wide  a  range,  1  might  here  de- 
velop those  arguments  on  the  subject  which  1  referred  to  in  the  be- 
ginning of  this  letter.  Those  who  are  desirous  of  investigating  thi.s 
question,  of  vital  importance  to  every  sincere  Christian,  I  refer  to  Wise- 
man's  Lectures,  an  English  work,  and  one  easily  obtained.  I  trust 
that  I  have  said  enough  to  show  that  such  a  tribunal,  at  least  for 
proving  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  does  and  must  exist,  unless 
we  presume  to  tax  the  infinite  wisdom  of  God  with  absurdity  and  con- 
tradiction. 

Which,  then,  is  that  body?  The  pastors  of  the  Catholic  Church 
claim  to  compose  it.  No  other  body  claims  that  commission.  Leav- 
ing aside  an  appeal  to  the  historical  evidence  of  continued  succession 
from  the  Apostles,  and  other  arguments  bearing  on  the  subject,  com- 
mon sense  tells  us  that  if  God  has  invested  any  body  of  individuals 
with  such  authority,  that  body  cannot  either  be  ignorant  of  its  powers 
nor  disclaim  them.  The  Catholic  Church,  then,  is  that  body.  In  the 
decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent  the  Christian  world  has  its  authorized 
declaration. 

But  why  delay  for  fifteen  centuries  and  a  half  this  necessary,  all-im- 
portant proof?  Why  leave  the  world  for  such  a  length  of  time  with- 
out this  evidence  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Scripture?  I  deny  that  tho 
delay  took  place.  In  order  that  the  sentiments  of  a  conmiunity  bo 
known  by  those  who  move  within  its  bosom  or  have  intercourse  with 
its  members,  it  is  not  necessary  that  these  should  assemble  in  a  itublic 
meeting  and  set  forth  their  opinions  in  a  preamble  and  resolutions. 
So,  too,  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church  can  be  known  by  tlie 
universal  and  concordant  teaching  of  her  pastors,  even  when  lier  bish- 
ops have  not  assembled  in  a  general  council  and  embodied  those  doc- 
trines in  a  list  of  decrees.  When  general  councils  are  held,  it  is.  on 
the  head  of  doctrine,  merely  to  declare  and  define  what  doctrines  have 
ever  been  taught  and  believed  in  the  Church.  This  is  what  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  did  on  the  Canon  of  Scripture. 

The  Apostles  left  to  the  infant  Church  those  inspired  works  which 


FIRST    LETTER   OF    A.    P.    F.  771 

Catholics  now  hold.  They  wore  universally  used,  excepting,  pcrhaj)?, 
in  a  few  churches  for  whose  variations  I  sliall  account  when  treating 
of  your  second  argument.  Atler  a  numlier  of  years  circumstances 
arose  which  led  some  persons  to  doubt  whether  the  universal  Church — 
though  she  ever  had  and  still  continued  to  use  them — did  so  because 
she  looked  on  all  as  inspired,  or  some  merely  as  pious  and  instructive 
works.  Other  works,  too,  were  protruded  as  inspired,  and  some  seemed 
to  obtain  partial  circulation.  An  expression  of  the  belief  of  the  body 
of  jiastors  was  required.  It  was  again  and  again  given  in  the  councils 
of  Carthage  and  Hippo  and  the  decisions  of  Innocent  I.  and  Gelasius. 
In  these  the  whole  body  of  pastors  acquiesced,  and  for  a  thousand  years 
no  objection  of  any  imjiortance  was  made.  After  that  peiiod  arose 
Protestantism.  Luther  and  his  followers  denounced  uumy  books — not 
those  alone  you  controvert,  but  others  also  wliich  you  revere  as  in- 
spired— in  terms  compared  to  which  even  your  essay  is  courteous. 
Some  Catholics,  too,  seemed  to  think  the  former  decision  had  not  been 
sufficiently  explicit,  and  therefore  the  bishops  at  Trent,  assisted  by  the 
most  learned  divines,  canonists  and  .scholars,  after  every  possible  re- 
search and  the  fullest  investigation,  decided  again  that  all  those  books 
in  the  Catholic  Bible  had  been  handed  down  from  the  Apostles,  had 
ever  been  held  in  the  Chiux-h  as  inspired,  and  should  therefiire  be  still 
revered  as  .sacred  and  canonical.  These  diffijrent  assertions  I  sliall  sus- 
tain by  due  authority  when  I  answer  your  second  argument. 

But  many  olijections  have  been  urged  against  the  truth  of  that  de- 
cision. I  a.sk  j-ou,  reverend  sir,  is  there  any  doctrine  of  revelation 
again.st  which  uiany  arguments  have  not  been  urged?  Have  not  the 
veiy  existence  of  God  and  His  unity  been  assailed?  Have  not  the  mys- 
teries of  the  Trinity,  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son,  and  every  doctrine 
of  Christianity,  been  attacked?  The  fact,  therefore,  of  opposition  is 
no  disproof  Nor  is  it  necessary  for  the  true  believer  to  be  able  to  an- 
swer everj'  cavil  or  sophism.  Surely  the  negro  cannot  answer,  cannot 
even  comprehend,  the  arguments  brought  against  the  existence  of  God. 
Is  he  therefore  doomed  to  remain  an  Atheist?  When  we  know  posi- 
tively and  clearly  that  God  requires  us  to  believe  a  certain  doctrine 
because  He  declares  it  to  be  true,  we  are  bound  to  obey  uncondition- 
ally. Common  sense  tells  us  that  eveiy  objection  to  it  nnist  be  based  on 
error,  even  though  we  be  unable  to  point  it  out.  And  so,  too,  a  Cath- 
olic relies  on  the  authorized  deci-sion  of  his  Church  concerning  the 
insjiired  writings  with  surety,  cla.s.sing  all  tlie  objections  urged  there- 
against  with  the  numberless  other  objections  urged  in  like  manner 
against  every  tnith  of  Divine  revelation,  against  the  Deity  himself, 
which,  according  to  his  degree  of  knowledge,  he  may  or  may  not  be 
able  to  refute,  but  wliich  he  knows  by  a  jmori  evidence  of  the  strong- 
est character  ?>t//.v^  be  false. 


772  APPENDIX    B. 

I  trust  that  "a  candid  and  unprejudiced  mind"  will,  upon  a  mature 
consideration  of  the  arguments  I  have  brought  forward,  see  that  the 
act  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  so  far  from  being  a  "striking  display  of 
intolerable  an-ogance,"  was  a  decision  with  the  Divine  authority  for 
which,  and  therefore  its  tmth,  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  for 
the  vast  majority  of  Christians,  and  consequently, on  Protestant  prin- 
ciples, Christianity  itself,  must  stand  or  fall. 

After  thus  establishing  the  absolute  necessity  of  admitting  that  au- 
thority which  you  impugn,  and  showing  the  frightful  consequences  of 
a  contrary  course — consequences  from  which  I  am  certain  you  will 
shrink — I  might  rest  satisfied  that  I  have  fully  answered  your  essay, 
and  proved  by  clear  and  cogent  arguments  the  inspiration  of  those 
works  against  which  it  is  directed.  Whatever  else  I  may  say  will  be 
"over  and  above  what  is  actually  required."  "With  the  distinct  un- 
derstanding, then,  that  I  am  doing  a  work  which  justice  to  our  cause 
does  not  absolutely  require,"  but  which  places  the  truth  not  in  a 
firmer  position,  but  in  a  stronger  light,  I  will  proceed  in  my  next  to 
notice  those  arguments  you  so  confidently  term  "irresistible."  Mean- 
while I  remain,  reverend  sir, 

Yours,  etc.,  A.  P.  R 


LETTER  11. 

To  THE  Reverend  JAMES  H.  THORNWELL,  Professor  of  the  Evidences  of  Chris- 

TIANITT,  ETC. 

Reverend  Sir:  In  the  introductorj^  remarks  to  .your  essay  you 
said  you  were  not  required  to  advance  a  single  argument  against  the 
books  of  "Tobit,  Judith,  the  additions  to  the  book  of  Esther,  Wis- 
dom, Ecclesiasticus,  Baruch  with  the  Epistle  of  Jeremiah,  the  Song 
of  the  Three  Children,  the  Story  of  Susannah,  the  Story  of  Bel  and 
the  Dragon,  and  the  first  and  second  books  of  Maccabees."  It  would 
at  first  sight  appear  from  your  article  that  Catholics  urge  only  the  au- 
thority of  the  Council  of  Trent  in  behalf  of  the  insjiiration  of  those 
books  and  parts  of  books.  You  have  scarcely  given  us  the  credit  of 
advancing  a  single  argument  in  corroboration  of  the  truth  of  that  de- 
cree. "A  candid  and  unprejudiced  mind"  would,  methinks,  have  de- 
sired from  you  at  lea.st  a  full  and  fiiir  statement  of  what  reasons  we  do 
bring  forward.  Your  position  forbids  my  supposing  you  ignorant  of 
at  least  some  of  them.  Still,  I  cannot  say  I  regret  the  course  you  have 
taken,  though  it  is  not  the  one  I  would  have  chosen.  Every  impar- 
tial, "thinking  mind,"  even  though  he  knew  nothing  of  the  Catholic 
view  of  the  question,  would  see  that  yours  is  completely  an  vJtra  jiarty 
exposition  of  the  case,  and  that,  before  forming  his  decision,  coniuion 


SECOND    LETTER   OF    A.    P.    F.  773 

l)ru(k'iR-C'  requires  him  to  hear  the  other  side.  I  trust  that  my  letters 
uiay  tall  into  the  hands  of  some  such. 

Ill  my  first  I  treated  of  the  authority  of  the  decree  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  which  declared  those  works  "sacred  and  canonical,"  and  showed 
by  a  line  of  argument — which,  although  not  conclusive  to  an  infidel, 
must  be  so  to  every  Christian,  because  leased  on  the  very  nature  of 
Christianity — that  in  the  decree  itself  we  had  clear  and  cogent  proof 
of  their  inspiration.  I  argued  thus:  No  man  can  be  called  on  to  be- 
lieve what  is  not  sustained  by  adequate  proof.  Hence,  when  CJod  pro- 
]  loses  any  truth  for  the  belief  of  man,  He  sustains  it  by  adequate  proof 
His  own  Divine  veracitj'  would  fully  constitute  that  proof  for  the  indi- 
vidual to  whom  He  speaks.  For  others  it  is  necessary  that  the  addi- 
tional fact  that  God  did  reveal  His  truth  to  that  individual  be  also 
sustained  by  adequate  proof  Nothing  deserves  that  name  which  can- 
not be  learned  or  understood,  or  which,  if  learned  and  understood, 
would  lead  to  error  or  leave  room  for  reasonable  doubt. 

You  hold  that  one  of  the  truths  proposed  by  Almighty  God  for  the 
belief  of  all  Christians,  to  whom  Christianity  is  duly  announced,  is,  that 
certain  works  are  inspired.  Unless  we  betake  ourselves  to  the  tenets 
of  the  Society  of  Friends,  and  say  that  He  declares  by  a  .special  revela- 
tion or  teaching  of  the  Private  Spirit  to  every  individual  what  books 
are  and  what  are  not  inspired  (which  neither  of  us  is  willing  to  do), 
we  must  confess  that  this  truth  is  one  communicated  to  man  many 
ages  ago,  and  which  is  now  to  be  believed  by  all  those  Christians  of 
eveiy  cla.ss  and  condition  and  clime  because  of  that  communication. 
Of  this  communication  there  does,  therefore,  there  must  exist,  adequate 
]noof  for  all  such  ]iersons.  There  can  be  but  four  methods  of  obtain- 
ing that  i>roof  three  of  which,  we  saw,  must  be  rejected  and  the  fourth 
consequently  admitted. 

The  ^first — a  i)ersonal  examination  by  each  individual  of  the  argu- 
ments, historical  or  intrin.sic,  in  favour  of  and  against  the  insjiiration 
of  the  Scripture,  even  if  siich  an  examination  woidd  ever  lead  to  a  cer- 
tain result — could  not  be  admitted,  because  the  overwhelming  majority 
of  Christians  are  prevented  from  instituting  that  examination  by  the 
duties  and  the  circumstances  of  that  condition  in  which  Divine  Provi- 
dence has  placed  them.  The  second — that  the  learned  .should  deci<le 
I'or  aud  be  followed  by  the  unlearned — would  lead  some  to  error,  as 
some  of  the  learned  thus  to  be  followed  have  decided  erroneously. 
The  /////•(/ — that  all  Christians  .«houId  learn  what  books  are  in  reality 
inspired  from  .«onie  individual  commissioned  by  Almighty  God  to  an- 
nounce this  tnith  to  the  world — was,  as  we  saw.  untenable,  for  the 
sini]ile  rea.son  that  no  such  declaration  from  an  indiviflual  thus  cnni- 
niissioned  exists.  We  were  forced,  therefore,  to  admit  the  fmirth, 
that  all  Christians  should  learn  what  books  compose  the  divincly-in- 


774  APPENDIX    B. 

spired  Scripture  from  a  body  of  individuals  whom  God  has  authorized 
to  decide  on  that  point,  and  guarantees  from  error  in  so  deciding. 
We  saw  that  this  method  was  feasible,  adapted  to  the  capacit}'  and 
condition  of  eveiy  Christian,  and  consonant  with  the  essence  of  re- 
ligion. If  adopted,  it  would  certainly  lead  to  truth.  In  one  word,  it 
alone  was  feasible  and  effective.  It  must^  therefore,  be  admitted,  un- 
less we  say  that  the  overwhelming  majority  of  Christians  are  "sol- 
emnly bound,"  unless  "they  run  the  risk  of  everlasting  damnation," 
to  reject  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  and  be,  on  Protestant  prin- 
ciples, perfect  infidels,  unless  we  overturn  Christianity  itself  The 
pastors  of  the  Catholic  Church  alone  claim  to  compose  that  body. 
They,  therefore,  DO  compose  it.  Their  decisions  on  the  question  of 
inspiration  are  guaranteed  by  Almighty  God  from  error.  They  have 
numbered  the  books  you  controvert  among  the  inspired  Scriptures 
Therefore  those  books  are  "snc/'ecZ  and  canonical.'" 

1  conceive  that  I  have  thus  satisfactorily  discharged  the  onus  pro- 
bandi  As  I  said  above,  Catholics  corroborate  this  decree  by  many 
other  arguments,  improbable  as  this  may  appear  to  those  who  look  on 
your  essay  as  a  fair  and  candid  exposition  of  the  state  of  this  contro- 
versy. This  might  be  the  most  proper  place  for  introducing  them ;  but 
as,  in  order  to  develop  them  fully,  I  would  have  to  say  much  which  I 
should  again  repeat  in  answering  your  ''irresistible"  arguments,  I  will 
defer  doing  so  just  now,  and  will  proceed  to  test  the  force  of  those 
same  "irresistible"  arguments. 

The  first  you  state  in  the  following  words:  [Here  A.  P.  F.  quotes 
at  length  Dr.  Thornwell's  fir.st  argument.  ] 

Now,  reverend  .sir,  you  .say  that  a  Canon  is  not  an  inspired  book, 
but  a  list  or  catalogue  of  insjtired  works.  You  lay  down  the  propo.^i- 
tion,  which  I  admit,  that  at  the  time  of  the  Saviour  the  Jewish  Syna- 
gogue had  such  a  Canon,  and  that  the  books  you  controvert  were  not 
included  therein.  There  might  be  some  discus.sion  as  to  part  of  what 
you  exclude,  but  I  will  not  argue  the  point.  Even  be  it,  if  yot^  will, 
that  during  the  preaching  of  the  Saviour  not  one  of  the  books  or  parts 
of  l)Ooks  the  insjnration  of  which  you  deny  was  included  in  the  Canon 
of  the  Synagogue  of  Jeru.salem. 

You  then  make  the  four  following  assertions : 

1.  That  the  Jews  "rejected"  those  books  from  their  Canon  in  such 
a  manner  as,  were  they  in  truth  inspired,  to  be  guilty  of  an  outrageous 
fraud  in  regard  to  the  "  Sacred  Oracles." 

2.  That  "the  Saviour  and  His  Apostles  approved  of  the  Jewi.*h 
Canon. ' ' 

3.  That  they  "appealed  to  it  as  possessing  Divine  authority." 

4.  That  they  "evidently  treated  it  as  oomitlote,  or  as  containing  the 
whole  (if  God's  revelation  as  far  as  it  was  then  made." 


SECOND    LETTER    OF    A.    P.    F.  775 

Now,  reverend  sir,  in  regard  to  the  last  three  points  I  notice  a  very 
serious  oversight  in  j-our  essay.  You  have  entirely  forgotten  or  omit- 
ted to  allege,  or  even  by  note  to  refer  to,  a  single  passage  of  the  New 
Testament  wherein  the  Saviour  or  the  Apostles  speaks  at  all  of  the 
Cation  of  the  Jews.  They  refer  to  the  Scriptures  generally  and  to 
particular  books ;  they  quote  from  them ;  but  there  is  not  in  the  whole 
New  Testament  a  single  passage  showing  that  Christ  and  His  Apostles 
ever  referred  to  the  canon,  catalogue  or  list  of  inspired  books  held 
among  the  Jews,  much  less  treated  that  catalogue  as  complete  and 
"containing  the  whole  of  God's  revelation  as  far  as  then  made." 

But  what  jou  cannot  sustain  by  an  appeal  to  the  words  of  the  Sa- 
viour or  of  the  Apostles  you  seek  to  establish  by  inference.  If  those 
works  are,  as  the  Council  of  Trent  declared  them  to  be,  in  reality  di- 
■tanely  inspired,  the  Jewish  nation,  in  not  admitting  them  into  their 
Canon,  "betrayed  their  trust,"  were  guilty  of  "fraud,"  "trampled  in 
the  dust  or  buried  in  obscurity,  or  even  robbed  of  its  full  authority," 
the  Word  of  God,  were  "guilty  of  an  outrageous  fraud  in  regard  to 
the  sacred  Oracles."  "  It  was  the  business  of  Christ  and  His  Apos- 
tles to  give  us  the  tchole  revelation  of  God."  Consequently,  in  that 
case  they  "would  have  charged  the  Jews  with  this  fraud,  or  taken 
some  steps  to  restore  the  rejected  books  to  their  proper  places."  He 
did  not,  neither  did  His  Apostles.  Therefore  those  books  are  not  in- 
spired, are  of  "no  more  authority  than  Seneca's  Letters  or  Tully's  Of- 
fices," and  the  Jewish  Canon,  which  did  not  contain  them,  was  then 
"complete,"  and  was  treated  as  such  by  the  Saviour  and  Ajjostles. 
This,  if  I  understand  you,  is  the  pith  of  your  argument,  in  which,  by 
the  by,  your  third  assertion  is  still  left  entirely  unsupported. 

Before  answering  this  argument  allow  me  to  make  a  few  preliminary 
observations : 

1.  That  there  is  great  diiference  between  not  inserting  a  work  really 
inspired  in  a  Canon  because  there  is  not  requisite  proof  to  establish  its 
inspiration  or  sufficient  authority  to  insert  it,  and  rejecting  it  when 
that  proof  and  authority  both  exist.  The  first  course  is  pro])er :  to 
insert  a  book  under  such  circumstances  would  be  criminal.  The  second 
deserves  all  the  terms  you  use.  The  first  was  the  case  of  the  Jews. 
Without  a  shadow  of  proof  therefor  you  charge  them  with  the  second, 
if  those  works  are  inspired.  In  your  argument  this  distinction  seems 
iKit  to  have  struck  you,  or  you  have  kept  it  out  of  sight  until  the  end. 
You  admit  it,  however,  toward  the  close  when  you  say,  "  If  it  .should 
be  .said  that  the  Jews  received  those  books  as  insjiired,  but  did  not  in- 
sert them  in  the  Canon  because  they  had  not  the  authority  of  a  Pro- 
phet for  doing  .so,"  etc. 

2.  In  case  those  books  were  in  reality  ins])ired,  though  not  inserted 
in  the  .Jewish  Canon,  it  would  have  been  sufficient  for  the  Saviour  or 


776  APPENDIX   B. 

the  Apostles  to  place  them  among  the  divinely-inspired  books  of  the 
Church.  This  I  think  evident  to  everj'  Christian.  You  seem  to  ad- 
mit it,  also,  when  j'ou  ask.  "  Why  is  it  that  Christ  did  not  give  the 
requisite  authority,  if  not  to  the  Jewish  rulers  and  priests,  at  least  to 
His  own  Apostles?" 

3.  Christ  and  His  Apostles  might  have  said  much  in  regard  to  the 
Scriptures  and  inspired  books  which  is  not  recorded  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. I  cannot  quote  higher  and  fuller  authority  than  the  New  Testa- 
ment itself:  "But  there  are  also  many  other  things  which  Jesus  did, 
wliich  if  they  were  written  every  one,  the  world  itself,  I  think,  would 
not  be  able  to  contain  the  books  that  should  be  written."  John  xxi.  25. 
"To  whom  {the  Apostles)  also  He  {Jesus)  showed  himself  alive  after  Hi8 
passion  by  many  proofs,  for  forty  days  appearing  to  them  and  speak- 
ing of  the  kingdom  of  God."  Acts  i.  3.  "Therefore,  brethren,  stand 
fast  and  hold  the  traditions  which  you  have  received,  whether  by  word 
or  by  our  epistle."  2  Thess.  ii.  14.  I  might  quote  other  texts,  but  my 
remark  is  evidently  true.  Did  not  the  Apostles  change  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  for  the  Lord's  daj',  making  this  a  day  of  rest,  consecrated  to 
Grod,  and  abrogating  the  first?  Where  will  you  find  that  in  the  New 
Testament?  This,  too,  you  seem  to  allow  is  possible,  as  you  begin 
your  second  argument  with  the  following  words:  "If  it  should  be  pre- 
tended that  Christ  did  give  His  Apostles  authority  to  receive  these 
books,  though  no  record  was  made  of  the  fact,  we  ask, ' '  etc. 

4.  I  might  also  make  another  remark.  Supposing  those  works  in- 
spired, as  I  contend  they  are,  but  not  admitted  at  the  Saviour's  time 
into  the  Jewish  Canon,  it  was  not,  strictly  speaking,  necessaiy  that 
either  Christ  or  the  Apostles  should  testify  personally  to  their  insjiira- 
tion.  If  the  Savioiu-  established  a  body  of  men,  who,  by  His  author- 
ity and  under  the  guidance  of  His  Holy  Spirit  of  truth,  were  to  decide 
that  question,  which,  as  I  showed  in  Letter  I. ,  we  are  necessarily  bound 
to  admit,  the  decision  of  such  a  body  at  any  subsequent  period  would 
be  amply  sufficient.  The  Christian  world  would  have  had,  in  the 
mean  time,  many  other  divinely-inspired  works.  If  God  was  not 
pleased  to  give  any  inspired  works  to  the  children  of  Israel  before 
Moses,  nor  to  inspire  the  Prophets  till  a  far  later  period,  surely  it 
would  be  the  height  of  presumiition  in  us  now  to  lay  down  rules  to 
Him,  prescribing  zchen  He  should  inspire  a  work  or  establish  its  inspi- 
ration.    This  is  more  evident  when  we  consider  that  the  Jews  had, 

,  and  the  Christians  must  still  have,  some  method  of  truly  and  satisfiw- 
torily  ascertaining  the  truths  of  Revelation  other  than  the  simple  ])e- 
rusal  of  all  the  inspired  works.  In  regard  to  the  Jews  this  is  evident, 
and  is  allowed  by  themselves.  That  Christians,  too,  have  such  a  mode 
(a  doctrine,  you  are  aware,  Catholics  hold)  is  shown  to  be  necessarily 
true  by  a  train  of  argument  similar  to  that  of  my  preceding  letter,  and 


SECOND    LETTER    OF    A.    P.    F.  777 

eqiiall}'  cogent.  Surel.v  the  three  hundred  thousand  negroes  ni  South 
Carohna  prohibited  by  hnv  from  being  taught  to  read  cannot  learn 
much  from  the  penisal  of  the  Scriptures.  Must  they,  therefore,  re- 
main ignorant  of  the  truth.s  of  Chri.stianity?  Again,  has  God  over 
declared  that  He  will  never  inspire  another  work?  And  if  He  has  not 
limited  His  omnipotence,  shall  we  dare  to  place  bounds  to  it?  Now, 
ill  iioint  of  fact,  as  far  as  the  C^hristian  world  is  conceined  there  would 
be  little  if  any  difference  between  His  insi>iring  a  work  five  hundred, 
one  thou.«and  or  two  thousand  years  after  Christ,  and  His  then  making 
known,  in  any  way  He  thinks  proper,  that  a  work  written  any  number 
of  years  before  is  inspired.  I  make  this  remark,  not  because  I  intend 
to  use  it  in  my  argument,  but  because  it  is  highly  improper  to  bind 
down  the  providence  of  God  in  regard  to  the  insjiired  writings  to  cer- 
tain laws  and  times,  as  you  seem  to  do,  that  have  no  foimdation  in 
truth.  The  Saviour  came,  if  you  will,  to  give  us  the  whole  revelation 
of  God — that  is,  all  the  ifncfraial  truths  of  that  revelation,  but  not  all 
the  ins])ired  works,  for  not  one  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
was  written  until  years  after  His  crucifixion.  St.  John  wrote  the  la,st 
after  the  year  VIO.  Many  early  Christians  thought  that  the  I'astor  of 
1  lermas,  written  many  years  still  later,  was  in.spired.  They  were  mis- 
taken ;  but  even  that  error  shows  that  they  at  that  early  age  knew 
of  no  declaration  of  the  Saviour  or  Apostles  that  there  should  be  no 
more  insjjired  books. 

With  these  i»refatory  observations,  I  take  up  your  argument  as  sim- 
jily  stated  above,  and  meet  it  by  answering  that  when  the  Jewish  Syn- 
agogue did  not  admit  those  works  into  the  Canon  it  was  because  of 
the  want  of  i)roof  of  their  insjiiration,  and  perhajis  want  of  authority 
to  amend  an  already  duly-established  Canon,  and  that  therefore  they 
wore  not  guilty  of  the  heinous  sin  you  lay  at  their  door;  and,  secondly, 
tliat  Christ  and  His  Ajiostles  tlul  take  some  steps,  not,  indeed,  to  in- 
sert tliKse  books  in  the  Jewish  Canon,  but  to  give  them  to  the  Chri.s- 
tians  as  divinely-inspired  works,  and  it  is  in  consequence  of  those  steps 
that  the  Catholic  Chiu-ch  has  ever  held  them  as  inspired  and  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  enumerated  them  in  the  li.st  of  "Sacred  and  Canonical" 
works. 

The  distinction  laid  ihiwn  in  my  first  remark  completely  mdlifics 
your  argument.  In  order  to  convict  the  Jews  of  an  "outrageous  fraud 
in  regard  to  the  Sacred  Oracles"  if  those  works  are  insj)ired,  you 
should  show,  not  only  that  thfise  works  were  not  insertecl  in  the  na- 
tional Cani>n,  but  also  that  when  a  work  was  insjiired  sufiicicnt  proof 
thereof  was  ever  offered  under  the  Synagogue,  and  that  there  also  ever 
existed  wime  individual  or  body  of  men  who  had  authority  to  act  on 
such  ])roof  and  to  amend  accordingly  that  national  Canon.  Need  I 
say  that  in  ynur  dissertation  we  look  in  vain  fur  anything  establishing 


778  APPENDIX    B. 

either  of  those  points?  The  only  remark  bearing  on  them  is  that 
alreadj^  referred  to :  "If  it  should  be  said  that  the  Jews  received  those 
books  as  inspired,  but  did  not  insert  them  in  the  Canon  because  they 
had  not  the  authority  of  a  Prophet  for  doing  so,  why  is  it  that  Christ 
did  not  give  the  requisite  authority,  if  not  to  the  Jewish  jjriests  and 
rulers,  at  least  to  His  own  Apostles?"  I  assert  that  the  Saviour  did 
give  to  His  Apostles  and  their  successors  every  power  that  was  neces- 
sary. This  follows  as  a  necessary  consequence  from  the  argument  laid 
down  in  my  previous  letter,  and  I  will  further  sustain  it  by  historical 
evidence.  But  even  had  He  done  nothing  directly  or  indirectly,  re- 
corded or  unrecorded,  in  the  matter,  the  only  legitimate  consequence 
would  be  that  He  was  not  pleased  ever  to  prove  authoritatively  the 
inspiration  of  those  books.  I  confess  it  would  be  highly  probable  they 
were  uninspired,  but  their  want  of  inspiration  would  not  be  an  inevi- 
table consequence.  Were  not  the  vision  of  Addo,  and  other  works  I 
will  mention  below,  inspired,  though  now  lost  and  known  only  by 
name  ?  Who  can  say  that  the  other  prophets  of  those  days  did  not 
write  works,  even  whose  names  are  unknown?  They  doubtless  served 
the  particular  end  for  which  God  designed  them.  But  even  had  the 
Saviour  acted  in  such  a  matter  as  to  show  evidently  that  those  works 
were  uninspired,  this  would  not  touch  either  of  two  points  so  import- 
ant to  the  validity  of  your  argument.  These,  reverend  sir,  you  have 
assumed  without  any  show  of  reason  or  authority.  Your  argument 
is  valueless,  and  crumbles  under  its  own  "irresistible"  weight. 

I  might  here  dismiss  this  part  of  your  essay,  as  the  onus  was  cer- 
tainly on  you  to  prove  everything  necessary  to  make  your  argument 
conclusive.  However,  even  though  it  be  something  "over  and  above" 
what  justice  to  my  cause  "absolutely  required,"  I  will  lay  before  our 
readers  a  few  remarks  on  the  national  Canon  of  the  Jews. 

The  earliest  notice  of  an  authoritative  sanction  of  any  work  among 
the  Israelites  is  found  in  the  command  of  Moses  to  the  Levites  (Deut. 
xxxi.  24-26),  to  place  in  the  side  or  by  the  side  of  the  ark  the  volume 
in  which  he  had  written  the  words  of  the  law.  This  would  apjiear  to 
designate  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  alone,  and  certainly  it  does  not 
follow  from  the  words  used  that  Moses,  in  ivriting  that  volume,  re- 
ceived the  supernatural  assistance  of  Divine  Inspiration.  But  I  am 
willing  to  admit  that  the  entire  Pentateuch  was  even  in  that  early  pe- 
riod known  to  be  inspired,  and  was  used  in  the  public  services,  though 
this  last,  I  think,  cannot  be  proved.  Moses  died  in  the  j'ear  1447 
before  Christ,  according  to  Calmet.  Esdras  returned  to  Jeru.s;ilem 
from  the  Babylonian  captivity,  462  B.  C.  During  this  period  of 
nearly  one  thousand  years  many  insi)ired  works  were  written.  We 
have  a  number  of  them  in  the  Old  Testament.  Others,  too.  were 
written  which  no  longer  exist.     I  might  mention  the  book  of  Samuel 


SECOND    LETTER    OF   A.    P.    F.  779 

the  Seer,  that  of  Nathan  the  Prophet,  and  of  Gad  the  Seer,'  contain- 
ing accounts  not  found  in  our  Bil)le,  the  books  of  Ahias  the  Silonite 
and  the  vision  of  Addo  thi;  Seer,^  the  books  of  Semeias  the  Prophet* 
and  tlie  words  of  Hozai,*  and  might  easily  swell  the  catalogue.  All 
those  works,  extant  or  lost,  were  in  all  piobability  known  to  be  inspired 
])y  the  contenii)oraries  of  the  several  writers,  but  we  have  nothing  to 
lead  us  to  supj)ose  that  dilring  all  this  time  an  exact  catalogue  or 
CaiKin  of  them  was  formed  by  national  or  Divine  authority.  In  the 
yi'ar  '.tTO  B.  C,  after  many  of  them  were  written,  the  ten  tribes  sci)a- 
rated  from  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  not  a  few  of  the  Israelites  retaining 
the  true  faith.  After  they  were  borne  into  cajjtivity  and  other  nations 
introduced  into  their  country,  these  new-comers  were  instructed  by  an 
Israelite  jjriest  how  they  should  worship  the  Lord,  but  for  some  time 
tliey  joined  therewith  heathen  jirofanities  and  idolatry.  These,  how- 
ever, we  know  they  afterwards  abandoned.  You  are  aware  they  still 
exist,  and  that  they  have  always  publicly  recognized  only  the  five  books 
of  Moses  as  inspired.  It  would  appear,  then,  that  at  the  time  of  the 
separation  of  the  children  of  Israel  under  llehoboam  no  Canon  had 
been  yet  drawn  up  by  (hie  autliority. 

This  is  more  evident  if  we  advert  to  the  fact  that  all  the  Jewi.sh 
writers  attribute  the  formation  of  their  Canon  to  the  Cheneseth  Ghe- 
dolah,  or  great  Synagogue,  after  the  cai)tivity  of  Babylon,  of  which 
Esdras  was  a  principal  member.  According  to  the  testimony  of  the 
rabbins  generally,  this  synagogue  commenced  under  Darius  Hystaspes, 
and  ended  in  Simon,  surnauied  the  Just,  high  priest  under  Seleucus 
Nicanor.  All  agree  in  i)lacing  it  between  tlio.se  two  extremes,  and 
.some  restrict  it,  at  least  in  its  flourishing  condition,  to  a  much  sh(jrter 
space.  It  .seems  generally  to  be  allowed  that  the  greater  part  of  the 
duty  in  regard  to  the  sacred  writings  devolved  on  Esdras  himself,  who 
expurgated  the  sacred  works  from  the  various  faults  into  which  copy- 
ists had  lallen.  and  collected  them  all  into  one  body,  introduced  the 
Jewish  divi.sions  of  Pen'-ihot,  Sedmitn  and  Pexhuot,  and  arranged  the 
whole  into  books.  It  would  seem,  too,  and  it  is  generally  admitted, 
that  various  additions  were  made,  such  as  the  conclusion  of  the  book 
of  Deuteronomy  concerning  the  death  of  Mo.se.s.  Grotius  thought  that 
the  inscriptions  and  dates  at  the  beginning  of  the  i)rophecies  originated 
here  too.  But  I  do  not  see  why  we  need  go  so  far,  as  it  was  natural 
tliat  the  original  writers  should  jtlace  them  there,  and  they  elsewhere 
occur  under  such  circumstances  as  show  them  to  be  evidently  the  work 
of  the  Prophets  themselves.  In  speaking  of  this  recension  of  the 
Scripture  and  formation  of  the  Canon,  the  Jews  generally  attributed  it 

>  1  Paralip.,  or  1  Chron.  xxi.x.  30. 

2  2  Pariilip.,  or  2  Chron.  i.\.  29  :  .\ii.  15  ;  xiii.  22. 

'  2  l*arali|i.,  or  2  Chron.  xii.  li.  *  2  I'aralip.,  or  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  19. 


780  APPENDIX    B. 

to  the  Cheneseth  Ghedolah,  or  great  Synagogue,  as,  in  the  treatise 
31ey1iillah,  third  chapter  of  the  Ghemara,  they  say  this  synagogue  re- 
stored the  i^ristine  purity  of  the  Scriptures,  and  in  Baba  bcithra,  chap. 
1,  that  the  men  of  the  great  Synagogue  wrote  the  book  of  the  tweh-e 
Prophets  and  the  books  of  Daniel  and  Esther.  EHas  the  Levite  and 
other  learned  rabbins  treat  the  whole  work  as  that  of  the  synagogue. 
Perhaps  we  would  not  be  far  from  the  tiiith  in  saying  that  Ksdras,  as 
member  of  the  Sanhedrim,  revised  the  coi^ies  of  the  sacred  writings,  re- 
stored the  true  reading,  collected  the  scattered  parts  of  the  Psalms — as 
the  authors  of  the  Synopsis  of  Scripture,  sometimes  attributed  to  St. 
Athanasius  and  St.  Hilary  (Prol.  in  Psalm.),  say — the  detached  Prov- 
erbs, and  the  other  scattered  parts,  and  arranged  the  whole  in  a  body, 
and  that  the  synagogue  itself  authoritatively  sanctioned  the  woik,  thus 
establishing  a  national  Canon.  In  this  plan  we  must  admit  that  some 
other  books  were  superadded  at  a  posterior  date  by  the  same  sjna- 
gogue.  In  arriving  at  a  decision  on  the  formation  of  this  Canon  we 
have  to  guide  ourselves,  not  by  the  infallible,  unvarying  statements  of 
inspired  writers,  but  by  the  perplexed,  sometimes  contradictory,  and 
often  nearly  valueless,  statements  of  historians  who  wrote  long  after- 
wards. One  thing  is  certain,  the  Canon  was  closed  after  the  admis- 
sion of  the  book  of  Nehemiah.  No  evidence  whatever  exists  to  prove 
the  existence  of  a  national  Canon  before  the  Babylonian  captivity. 
The  Jewish  and  the  early  Christian  writers  speak  of  this  alone,  and 
their  testimonies,  carefully  weighed,  would  lead  to  the  opinion  I  have 
stated. 

What  were  the  ideas  of  the  Jews  on  this  subject  at  the  time  of  the 
Saviour  may  be  learned  from  the  following  passage  of  Josephus  Fla- 
vins, in  his  first  book  against  Appion.  After  stating  in  the  sixth  chap- 
ter that  the  ancient  Jews  took  great  care  about  writing  lecords  of  their 
history,  and  that  they  committed  that  matter  to  their  high  priests  and 
their  prophets,  and  that  those  records  had  been  written  all  along  down 
to  his  own  times  with  the  utmost  accuracy;  and  in  the  seventh,  that 
the  best  of  the  priests  and  those  who  attended  upon  the  Divine  wor- 
ship were  appointed  from  the  beginning  for  that  design,  and  that  great 
care  was  taken  that  the  race  of  the  priests  should  continue  mimixed 
and  pure,  he  continues : 

"And  this  is  justly  or  rather  necessarily  done,  because  every  one  is 
not  permitted  of  his  own  accord  to  be  a  writer,  nor  is  there  any  dis- 
agreement in  what  is  written,  they  being  only  prophets  that  have 
written  the  original  and  earliest  account  of  things  as  they  learned  them 
of  God  himself  by  inspiration ;  and  others  have  written  what  hath  hap- 
pened in  their  own  times,  and  that  in  a  very  distinct  manner  also. 

"For  we  have  not  an  innumerable  multitude  of  books  an)ong  us, 
disagreeing  from  and  contradicting  one  another  [as  the  Greeks  have], 


sp:coxd  letter  of  a.  p.  f.  781 

but  only  twonty-two  Itooks,  which  contain  the  rccorils  of  all  the  past 
time,  which  are  justly  believed  to  be  divine,  and  of  them  five  belong 
to  3I0SCS,  which  contain  his  laws  and  the  traditions  of  the  origin  of. 
mankind  till  his  death.  This  interval  of  time,  from  the  death  of  Moses 
till  the  vi'Ainn  of  Ai"t:ixcrxes.  king  of  Persia,  who  reigned  after  Xerxes, 
rlic  pro]  )hets,  who  were  after  Moses,  wrote  down  what  was  done  in 
their  times  in  thirteen  books.  The  remaining  four  books  contain 
hynms  to  God  ami  precepts  for  the  conduct  of  human  life.  It  is  true, 
our  history  liath  boon  written  .><inco  Artaxerxes  very  particularly,  but 
hath  not  been  esteemed  of  the  like  authority  with  the  former  by  our 
forefathers,  because  there  hath  not  been  an  exact  succes.sion  of  prophets 
since  that  time.  And  how  firmly  we  have  given  credit  to  these  books 
of  our  own  nation  is  evident  by  what  we  do,  for  during  so  many  ages 
as  have  already  pas.^ed  no  one  hath  been  so  bold  as  either  to  add  any- 
thimr  to  them,  to  take  anything  from  them,  or  to  make  any  change  in 
them.-- 

From  this  it  appears  that  there  were  among  the  Jews  at  our  Sa- 
viour's time  two  classes  of  books  which  were  deemed  worthy  of  respect — 
their  canonical  works  and  others  "not  esteemed  of  the  like  authority." 
In  the  Jewish  writers  we  find  two  degrees  of  insi)iration  designated, 
wliich  they  term  harrahh  hnqqddoali  and  hath  quol.  In  both  they 
recognize  an  assistance  of  God,  and  say  that  the  books  of  their  Canon 
attained  the  first  rank,  while  the  second  degree  only  was  attained  by 
writers  after  it  was  completed.  I  may  refer  you  to  the  Talmud,  Baha 
C'lma,  chap.  Hachohtl,  where  the  work  of  Ben  Sirach,  as  they  style 
Ecclesiasticus,  is  declared  thus  inspired.  St.  Jerome  in  his  preflice  to 
Jiulith  ex])ressly  states  that  the  work  is  clas.sed  by  the  Jews  among  the 
Ifiifyioi/raphn,^  or  sacred  writings,  not  of  the  first  class,  for  he  else- 
where states  that  they  were  not  in  the  Jewish  Canon,  but  consequently 
in  the  second.  The  books  of  Tolnas,  Jiidith  and  the  Maccabees  evi- 
dently fall  under  the  class  specially  mentioned  by  Josephus. 

I  do  not  feel  it  nece.s.siry,  reverend  sir,  to  dwell  at  length  on  this 
topic,  as  you  have  merely  assumed,  without  any  ]iroof,  that  the  Jews 
rejected  as  iminspired,  mere  human  i)roductions,  all  books  not  con- 
tained in  their  Canon. 

The  Jewi.sli  wiiters  declare  that  their  national  Canon  was  dosed  and 
sealed  by  tlic  great  Synagogue,  and  that  books  written  afterwards 
attained  a  lower  degree  of  inspiration.  What  authority  they  thought 
necessary  and  sufficient  to  amend  that  Canon  I  have  never  met  laid 
down  })y  any  one  of  them.  They  seem  to  pre.supjiose  that  no  .such 
authority  existed  in  fact,  nor  do  they  treat  of  the  evidence  sufficient  to 

1  Some  copies  lijive  Apornjpha,  but  Jahn,  after  a  critical  examination  of  the 
authorities,  deciiles  that  Hiigiogiii|iha  is  the  true  original  reading,  and  the  other 
a  posterior  change. 


782  APPENDIX    B. 

establish  the  inspiration  of  a  work.  We  must  conclude,  then,  that  those 
works  were  never  brouirht  before  a  competent  tribunal  of  the  Jewish 
nation  with  sufficient  evidence,  if  they  were  inspired,  to  prove  it,  and 
j^et  were  rejected.  Nevertheless,  all  this  must  be  proved  :  it  must  bo 
established  that  such  a  tribunal  did  exist ;  that  these  works  whose  in- 
spiration you  conti'overt  were  laid  before  it;  that  if  they  were  inspired, 
sufficient  evidence  to  i)rove  the  fact  was  and  must  have  been  brought 
forward ;  and,  finally,  that  the  tribunal  rejected  the  evidence,  con- 
demned the  books,  and  refused  to  admit  them  into  the  Canon.  This 
j'ou  have  not  endeavoured  to  establish.  Had  you  endeavoured,  \-ou 
would  have  failed,  for  .you  would  have  found  the  monuments  of  history 
arrayed  against  j^ou.  And  j-et  it  should  have  been  established  before 
you  could  reasonably  assert  that  in  regard  to  these  books,  if  they  are 
inspired,  the  Jewish  nation  had  been  "guilty  of  an  outrageous  fraud 
on  the  Sacred  Oracles,"  and  that  consequently  they  would  have  mer- 
ited and  received  a  severe  rebuke  from  the  Saviour,  which  rebuke  the 
Evangelists  were  bound  to  insert  in  their  Gospels. 

But,  reverend  sir,  even  had  the  Jews  been  in  reality  thus  heinously 
guilty,  was  the  Saviour  bound  to  rebuke  them  ?  Did  not  the  Saddu- 
cees  and  Samaritans  criminally  reject  as  uninspired,  treat  merely  as 
human  productions,  all  the  inspired  works  excejjt  the  Pentateuch  or 
five  books  of  Moses?  We  know  that  He  and  His  Apostles  conversed 
with  them,  opposed  and  condemned  their  errors,  but  where  did  He 
charge  them  with  this  heinous  fraud?  Or  even  had  He  rebuked  the 
Jews,  I  cannot  see  why  the  Evangelists  were  bound  to  record  it  more 
than  "all  the  other  things  that  Jesus  did,"  or  all  His  discourses  with 
His  Apostles  for  forty»  days  after  his  resurrection.  It  surely  would 
have  been  enough  to  condemn  and  correct  the  outrageous  fraud  of  the 
Jews,  had  any  been  committed,  to  leave  the  books  they  omitted  to  the 
Church  which  He  founded,  and  for  us  it  would  be  enough  if  we  can 
know  this  with  certainty.  This  leads  me  to  the  second  part  of  my 
answer  to  your  argument.  Did  the  Saviour  and  His  Apostles  leave 
those  books  and  parts  of  books  to  the  early  Christians  as  inspired 
works  ? 

My  first  reply  would  be  based  on  the  principles  of  my  last  letter. 
There  must  be  a  sure  method  whereby  the  wearied  little  sweep  who  now 
cries  under  my  window,  who  has  trudged  the  streets  since  early  dawn, 
and  ere  another  hour  will  bury  his  limbs  in  balmy  sleep,  preparing  for 
to-morrow's  task,  can  answer  tliat  question  as  confidently  and  as  accu- 
rately as  you,  reverend  sir,  whom  years  of  study  have  made  conversimt 
with  ancient  languages,  and  who  have  libraries  at  hand  and  leisure  to 
pore  over  the  tomes  of  other  days.  That  method  is  the  teaching  of 
the  Catholic  Church  divinely  guaranteed  from  error.  Were  he  to  ask 
me,  to  that  Church  and  her  testimony  I  would  refer  him,  and  if  rea- 


SECOND  lettp:r  of  a.  p.  f.  783 

son  and  common  sense  prove  aught,  you  must  admit  that  the  answer 
he  woTild  receive  at  her  hands  would  he  unerring. 

You  require  positive  proofs  from  liistory  of  the  fact,  and  I  am  ready 
to  bring  them  forwai-d.  We  have,  as  I  stated — and  your  argument  i.s 
based  on  the  acknowledgment — no  record  in  the  New  Testament  of  the 
books  the  Apostles  or  the  Saviour  did  leave  to  their  followers  as  in- 
spired. They  refer  to  the  Scriptures  in  general,  and  quote  or  allude 
to  particular  jiassages,  but  have  nowliere  diawri  up  a  list  of  the  scri|i- 
tural  works.  The  evidence  must  manifestly  be  drawn  from  the  history 
of  the  Church,  whence,  too,  you  in  your  second  argument  have  en- 
deavoured to  extract  proofs  for  j'our  cause.  As  I  intend  following  the 
divisions  of  your  essay,  I  will  reserve  the  testimonies  of  the  early 
Christian  writers  for  my  next  letter. 

Now  that  the  difficulty  j'ou  imagined  so  unconquerable— the  fraud 
of  the  Jews  and  the  necessity  for  its  recorded  condemnation — has  van- 
ished, you  will  probably  retract  your  concession:  "We  will  grant" 
the  Catholic  "what  he  cannot  prove  and  what  ice  can  disprove^  that 
these  books  are  quoted  in  the  New  Testament.''  It  was  certainly 
easier  and  more  prudent  to  pass  by  this  argument  in  the  manner  j'ou 
have  done  than  to  disprove  it,  as  you  assert  j'ou  can.  I  will  lay  before 
you  some  of  the  texts  of  the  New  Testament  in  which  the  passages 
of  those  works  are  quoted  or  referred  to : 

1.  "  See  thou  never  do  to  another  what  thou  wouldst  hate  to  have 
done  to  thee  by  another."  Tob.  iv.  16.  "All  things,  therefore,  what- 
soever you  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  you  also  to  them. ' ' 
Matt.  vii.  12.  "And  as  j-ou  would  that  men  .should  do  to  j-ou,  do  you 
al.-o  to  them  in  like  manner."  Luke  vi.  31. 

2.  "Happy  shall  I  be  if  there  shall  remain  of  my  .seed  to  see  the 
glory  of  Jerusalem.  The  gates  of  Jerusalem  shall  be  built  of  sapphire 
and  emerald,  and  all  the  walls  thereof  round  about  of  precious  stones. 
All  its  streets  .«hall  be  paved  with  white  and  clean  stones,  and  Alleluia 
shall  be  sung  in  its  streets.  Blessed  be  the  Lord  who  hath  exalted 
it,  and  may  He  reign  in  it  for  ever  and  ever!  Amen."  Tobias  xiii. 
20.  23. 

"And  the  building  of  the  wall  thereof  was  of  jasper  stone,  but  the 
city  itself  pure  gold,  like  to  clear  glass.  And  the  foundation  of  the 
walls  of  the  city  were  adorned  with  all  manner  of  precious  stones. 
The  first  foundation  was  jasper,  the  second  sapphire,  .  .  .  the  twelfth 
an  amethyst.  And  the  twelve  gates  are  twelve  pearls,  one  to  each, 
and  every  several  gate  was  of  one  several  pearl.  And  the  street 
of  the  city  was  pure  gold,  as  it  were  transparent  glass."  Apoe.  xxi. 
18-21. 

3.  "But  they  that  did  not  receive  the  trials  with  the  fear  of  the 
Lord,  but  uttered  their  im[)atiencc  and  the  reproach  of  their  murmur- 


784  APPENDIX   B. 

ing  against  the  Lord,  were  destroyed  by  the  destroyer  and  perished  by 
serpents."  Jud.  viii.  24,  25. 

"  Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ,  as  some  of  them  tempted  and  per- 
ished by  the  serpents.  Neither  do  you  murmur,  as  some  of  them 
nuumured  and  were  destroj'ed  by  the  destroyer."  1  Cor.  x.  9,  10. 

4.  "  The  just  shall  shine,  and  shall  run  to  and  fro  like  sparks  among 
the  reeds."  Wisdom  iii.  7.  "Then  shall  the  just  shine  as  the  sun  in 
the  kingdom  of  their  Father."  Matt.  xiii.  43. 

5.  "They  [the  just]  shall  judge  nations  and  rule  over  people,  and 
their  Lord  shall  reign  forever."  Wisdom  iii.  8.  "  Know  you  not  that 
the  saints  shall  judge  this  world?"   1  Cor.  vi.  2. 

0.  "He  pleased  Grod  and  was  beloved,  and  living  among  sinners  he 
was  translated."  Wisdom  iv.  10.  "By  faith  Henoch  was  translated 
that  he  should  not  see  death,  and  he  was  not  found,  because  God  had 
translated  him.  For  before  his  translation  he  had  testimony  that  he 
pleased  Grod."  Heb.  xi.  5. 

7.  "  For  she  [Wisdom]  is  the  brightness  of  eternal  light  and  the  un- 
spotted mirror  of  Grod's  majesty,  and  the  image  of  His  goodness." 
Wisdom  vii.  26.  "Who  [the  Son  of  God]  being  the  brightness  of 
His  glory  and  the  figure  of  His  substance,"  etc.  Heb.  i.  3.  See  aJso  2 
Cor.  iv.  4  and  Col.  i.  v. 

8.  "For  who  among  men  is  he  that  can  know  the  counsel  of  God? 
or  who  can  think  what  the  will  of  God  is?"  Wisdom  ix.  13.  "For 
who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord?  or  who  hath  been  His  coun- 
sellor?" Kom.  xi.  34. 

9.  "The  potter,  also,  tempering  soft  earth,  with  labour  fashioneth 
every  vessel  for  our  sei-vice,  and  of  the  same  clay  he  maketh  .such  ves- 
sels as  are  for  clean  uses,  and  likewise  such  as  serve  to  the  contrary; 
but  what  is  the  use  of  these  vessels  the  potter  is  the  judge."  Wisdom 
XV.  7.  ' '  Or  hath  not  the  potter  power  over  the  clay  of  the  same  lump, 
to  make  one  vessel  unto  honour  and  another  unto  dishonour?"  Rom. 
ix.  21. 

10.  "  Or  if  they  admired  their  power  and  their  effects,  let  them  un- 
derstand by  them  that  He  who  made  them  is  mightier  than  they,  for 
by  the  greatness  of  the  beauty  and  the  creature  the  Creator  of  them 
may  be  seen  so  as  to  be  known  thereby."  Wisdom  xiii.  4.  5.  "For 
the  invisible  things  of  Him  from  the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly 
seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that  are  made."  Rom.  i.  20. 

11.  "And  His  zeal  will  take  armour,  and  He  will  arm  the  creature 
for  the  revenge  of  His  enemies.  He  will  jnit  on  justice  as  a  breastplate, 
and  will  take  time  judgment  instead  of  a  helmet.  He  will  take  of|uity 
for  an  invincible  shield,  and  He  will  sharpen  His  severe  wrath  for  a 
spear."  Wisdom  v.  18,  21.  "Therefore  take  unto  you  the  armour  of 
God,  that  you  may  be  able  to  resist  in  the  evil  day  and  to  stand  inaU 


SECOND    LETTER   OF    A.    P.    F.  785 

tilings  pcrtlrt.  Stand,  tluTcforo,  having  your  loins  girt  aliout  with 
truth,  and  liaving  on  the  breastplate  of  justice,  ...  in  all  things 
taking  the  shield  of  faith,  wherewith  you  may  be  able  to  extinguish  all 
the  fiery  darts  of  the  most  wicked  one.  And  take  unto  you  the  helmet 
of  salvation  and  the  sword  of  the  Spirit  (which  is  tlie  word  of  God)." 
Eph.  vi.  13,  17. 

12.  "They  that  fear  the  Lord  will  not  be  incredulous  to  His  word, 
and  they  that  love  Ilim  will  keep  Ilis  way.  They  that  fear  the  Lord 
will  seek  after  the  things  that  are  well  ])leasing  to  Him,  and  they  that 
love  Him  shall  be  filled  with  His  law.  .  .  .  They  that  fear  the  Lord 
keep  His  commandments,  and  will  have  patience  even  until  His  visita- 
tion." Ecdesia.sticus  ii.  18,  21.  "If  any  one  love  me  he  will  keep  my 
word."  John  xiv.  23. 

13.  "]\Iy  son,  meddle  not  with  many  matters,  and  if  thou  be  rich 
thou  shalt  not  be  free  from  sin."  Ecclus.  xi.  10.  "For  they  that  will 
become  rich  fall  into  temptation  and  into  the  .snare  of  the  devil,  and 
into  many  unprofitable  and  hurtful  desires  which  drown  men  into  de- 
struction and  perdition."  1  Tim.  vi.  9. 

14.  "There  is  one  that  is  enriched  by  living  sparingly,  and  this  is 
the  portion  of  his  reward.  In  that  he  saith,  I  have  found  me  rest, 
and  now  I  will  eat  my  goods  alone ;  and  he  knoweth  not  what  time 
shall  pass,  and  that  death  api)roacheth,  and  that  he  must  leave  all  to 
others  and  shall  die."  Ecclus.  xi.  18,  19,  20.  "And  I  [the  rich  man 
in  the  parable]  will  say  to  my  soul.  Soul,  thou  hast  much  goods  laid 
up  for  many  years ;  take  thy  rest,  eat,  drink,  make  good  cheer.  But 
God  .said  to  him,  Thou  fool,  this  night  do  they  require  thy  .soul  of 
thee,  and  whose  shall  those  things  be  which  thou  hast  provided?" 
Luke  xii.  19,  20. 

15.  '*  If  thou  wilt  keep  the  commandments  and  perform  acceptable 
fidelity  for  ever,  they  .shall  preserve  thee."  Ecclu.s.  xv.  IG.  "If  thou 
wilt  enter  into  life,  keep  the  commandments."  Matt.  xix.  17. 

Ifi.  The  pas.sage  of  St.  Paul,  "But  others  were  racked,  not  accept- 
ing deliverance,  that  they  might  find  a  better  resurrection"  (Heb.  xi. 
35),  has  been  acknowledged,  even  by  Protestant  commentators,  to  be, 
and  evidently  is,  a  reference  to  the  account  of  the  martj'rdom  of  Eleazar, 
given  in  the  second  book  of  Maccabees,  vi.  18-31. 

I  might  cite  many  .such  pas.>*ages,  but  these  will  be  sufficient  for  my 
imrpose.  Any  "candid  and  unprejudiced  mind,"  at  all  versed  in  the 
rules  of  criticism,  must  .see  that  in  the  New  Testament  the  jiassages  I 
have  brought  forward  are  alluded  to  and  were  had  in  view.  The  iden- 
tity of  thought  and  the  similarity,  often  .striking  coincidence,  of  expres- 
sion, absolutely  require  this,  else  there  is  no  such  thing  as  one  writer's 
using  the  thought  and  exiire.«sion  of  anotlier.  You  say,  though  you 
do  not  maintain  their  ojiinion,  that  some  "learned  men  have  doubted 
V.,i..  111.-50 


786  APPENDIX    B. 

whether  some  of  them  existed  at  all  until  some  time  after  tlie  last  of 
the  Apostles  had  fallen  asleep."  You  yourself  do  not  "believe  that 
the  Septuagint  contained  them  at  the  time  of  the  Saviour  and  the 
Apostles. ' '  I  have  not  taken  the  pains  to  see  who  were  those  learned 
men,  or  what  books  they  thought  were  posterior  to  the  Apostles.  I 
have  before  me — and,  had  your  adopting  their  opinion  rendered  it 
necessary,  or  did  the  space  of  this  letter  permit,  might  produce — tes- 
timony in  abundance  to  prove  those  works  anterior  to  the  Saviour. 
One  of  the  authors  j^ou  quote,  Eichhorn,  and  Jahn,  one  of  the  most 
acute  of  German  critics,  declare  that  Philo  has  drawn  much  from  the 
earlier  of  those  works,  so  much  so  as  to  have  been  sometimes  deemed 
the  author  of  the  book  of  Wisdom.  To  your  own  "belief,"  and,  if 
you  please,  the  authority  of  Schmidius,  I  will  oppose  the  express  dec- 
laration of  Origen,  the  highest  authority  we  can  find  or  could  desire  on 
this  question  of  fact.  In  his  epistle  to  Julius  Africanus,  De  Historia 
Siisannce,  he  says:  I)i  nostro  Grceco  sermone  feruntur  in  nmni  ecdesia 
Christi,  that  these  passages  of  Daniel  "are  found  in  our  Greek  tongue 
throughout  the  entire  Church;"  and  further  on:  Ajyiid  utnanque  erat 
de  Susanna  ut  tu  dicis  Jigmenhini,  et  extremce partes  in  Daniele;  "in 
both  (the  Septuagint  and  the  version  of  Theodotion)  are  contained 
what  you  call  the  fiction  of  Susannah  and  the  last  parts  of  the  book  of 
Daniel ;"  and  immediately  afterwards,  enumerating  what  you  term  the 
additions  to  the  book  of  Esther,  emphatically  declares  that  though  not 
found  in  the  Hebrew  in  his  day,  Apud  Septuaginta  autem  et  Theodo- 
tioneni  ea  sunt,  "  they  are  found,  nevertheless,  in  the  Septuagint  and 
Theodotion. "  I  do  not  pretend  to  say  that  the  Seventy  translated  into 
Greek  works  written  in  that  language,  as  were  some  of  the  books  in 
question,  or  not  composed  until  they  were  in  their  graves.  It  is  gene- 
lally  allowed  that  they  translated  at  most  only  the  canonical  works  of 
the  Jews  shortly  after  that  Canon  was  formed.  Other  works,  how- 
ever, existed  in  the  Jewish  nation,  which  were  revered  and  used  and 
looked  on  as  written  in  Bath  quol,  or  the  second  degree  of  inspiration, 
and  were  added,  if  you  please,  as  an  appendix  to  the  collection  of 
works  translated  by  the  Seventy,  the  whole  collection,  containing  both 
classes  of  books,  still  retaining,  at  least  among  Christians,  the  name  of 
the  Septuagint  version.  Not  to  multiply  quotations  on  this  point,  I 
will  merely  bring  forward  the  testimony  of  Walton,  the  editor  of  the 
Polyglot,  whom  I  respect  as  the  most  learned  of  I  rotestants  in  such 
matters,  and  eminently  qualified,  by  his  vast  researches  on  the  difier- 
ent  versions,  to  decide  authoritatively.  His  Protestantism  effectually 
prevented  any  partialiti/  in  favour  of  those  books.  In  his  Prol.,  cap. 
ix.,  he  says :  ^^  Libri  itaque  Apoa-yphi,  ut  d  variis  auctorihus  ita  variis 
temporihns  scripti  sunt,  quidam  Hebraic^,  quidam  Grcech ;  et  licet 
apud  JMlenistas  primuni  recepti  fuerint,  tempus  tamen  prcecisi  assig- 


SECOND    LETTER    OF    A.    P.    F.  787 

narl  non  potest,  qunndo  cum  reh'qui.t  lihri-s  sacris  in  luium  vohimen 
compacti  fueiiiit.  Hoc  tamen  clarum  est,  a  Jtufais  irelleni.stis  cinn 
reJlqua  Scrlptura  Ecclesiam  eos  recepisse.^'  "  Wlieicfoie  the  Apociy- 
phal  books  were  written  as  well  by  diflferent  authors  as  at  different 
times,  some  in  Hebrew  and  some  in  Greek ;  and  although  they  were 
first  received  by  the  Hellenists,  yet  the  precise  time  cannot  be  assigned 
when  they  were  united  in  one  volume  with  the  other  sacred  works. 
This  much,  however,  is  evident,  that  the  Church  received  them  from 
the  Hellenist  Jews." 

Whether  this  transfer  was  made  with  or  without  the  consent  of  the 
Apostles  may,  I  think,  be  learned  from  a  glance  at  the  texts  I  have 
quoted  above.  What  are  the  facts  of  the  case  ?  There  existed  a  cer- 
tain collection  of  books  well  known  to  the  apostolic  writers  and  to  the 
faithful  to  whom  their  epistles  were  sent,  as  many,  if  not  most,  of  them 
were  converts  from  the  number  of  those  same  Hellenist  Jews.  In 
that  collection  were  compri.sed  not  only  the  canonical  books  of  the 
Jews,  but  also  those  styled  by  the  Protestants  apocryphal.  The  Ai)0.s- 
tles  quote  frequently  by  name  books  of  that  collection,  sometimes 
extract  verbatim  or  with  a  partial  change  of  words  entire  sentences, 
but  more  frequently,  adopting  and  appealing  as  it  were  to  some  pas- 
sage, incorporate  its  sentiment,  and  more  or  less  of  its  wording,  into 
their  own  train  of  thought.  This  is  most  frequently  done  by  the 
Saviour,  as  may  be  seen  by  any  of  my  readers  who  disdains  not,  in  his 
love  of  the  Bible  alone,  to  use  one  with  accurate  marginal  references. 
The  passage  from  Tobias  is  as  striking  and  as  well  defined  a  quotation 
as  any  other,  and  as  such  must  have  .'Struck  his  hearers.  The  change 
of  the  original  negative  into  the  positive  is  not  so  striking  as  that  of 
Micheas  v.  2:  "And  thou,  Bethlehem  Ephrata,  art  a  little  one  among 
the  thousands  of  Judah,"  quoted  thus  by  St.  ^latthew,  ii.  6:  "And 
thou  Bethlehem,  the  land  of  Judah,  art  NOT  the  least  among  the 
princes  of  Judah."  Protestants  find  not  the  least  difficulty  in  admit- 
ting such  passages  of  the  New  Testament  to  contain  allusions  to  the 
Old  as  long  as  their  canonical  books  alone  are  concerned,  but  when  a 
jiassage  of  the  works  whose  inspiration  they  deny  is  laid  before  them, 
the  thought  and  tournure  of  expression  of  which  an  Apostle  has 
adoi>ted  into  his  own  Epistle  so  evidently  as  would  now-a-daj's  suffice 
to  convict  a  poet  of  plagiary,  oh !  then  that  cannot  be  a  quotation ! 
Truly,  reverend  sir,  to  use  your  own  words,  "Light  is  death  to  their 
cau.se." 

I  have  thus,  reverend  sir,  examined  your  first  argument.  You  state 
that  at  the  Saviour's  time  the  Jews  had  a  national  Canon  in  which  the 
works  you  impugn  were  not  contained.  I  am  willing  to  admit  this  in 
regard  to  all  the  books  except  Bnrnch  with  the  Epistle  of  Jeremiah, 
the  a  hi  it  ion  to  the  book  of  Esther,  and  the  jiarts  of  Daniel  which  you 


788  APPENDIX    B. 

style  the  Stoi-y  of  Susannah,  the  Stoi-)/  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  and 
the  Song  of  the  Three  Children.  I  know  that  they  had  the  books  of 
which  these  were  considered  parts ;  it  is  allowed  that  those  parts  once 
existed  in  the  original  language  of  those  books,  and  that  at  the  time 
of  Origen  they  no  longer  existed  in  those  languages.  Before  I  admit 
that  they  perished  in  those  languages,  not  after  but  before  the  time 
of  the  Saviour,  I  must  have  proof  positive,  which  I  do  not  recollect 
having  ever  met,  and  I  am  of  opinion  does  not  exist.  However,  T 
waived  all  controversy  on  this  point,  allowing  your  argument  all  the 
force  it  could  receive  from  the  foot  did  it  take  place. 

You  then  said  that  the  Jews  excluded  them  from  their  Canon  under 
such  circumstances  as,  were  they  in  reality  inspired,  to  render  them- 
selves "guilty  of  an  outrageous  fraud  in  regard  to  the  Sacred  Oracles." 
This  was  a  mere  assumption  unsupported  by  any  proof  It  could  not 
be  the  case  unless  there  existed  a  tribunal  in  their  nation  capable  of 
adding  to  the  Canon  already  established,  and  the  books  were  laid 
before  this  tribunal.  You  seem  to  think  that  the  Jewish  Canon  was 
established  by  Divine  authority.  This  would  at  once  take  off  all  respon- 
sibility from  the  Jewish  nation  and  defeat  your  own  argument.  I  have 
not  taken  advantage  of  it,  however,  as  the  Jews  themselves  attribute 
the  formation  of  their  Canon  not  to  an  immediate  revelation  of  God,  but 
to  their  Cheneseth  Ghedolah,  or  Great  Synagogue.  I,  who  see  there- 
in a  general  Council  of  the  Church  in  the  old  law,  claiming  and  exer- 
cising by  the  authority  of  God  the  power  of  teaching  the  faithful  what 
were  their  inspired  works,  will  readily  admit  its  Divine  authority  so  far 
as  the  decree  can  be  evidently  shown  to  have  gone — that  is,  that  those 
books  were  inspired.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  it  determined  anything 
in  regard  to  books  either  lost,  as  probably  many  were,  or  yet  unwrit- 
ten, or  not  in  their  possession.  It  would  seem  that  it  was  with  great 
difficulty  they  obtained  even  those  whose  inspiration  they  testified  to. 
I  question  much  whether  in  this  view  j'ou  will  admit  the  Divine 
authority  of  the  Jewish  Canon,  and  j-et  j'ou  say  the  Saviour  did. 
History  informs  us  that  this  great  Synagogue  ended,  and  was  not 
revived  or  succeeded  by  any  other  of  equal  authority  to  act  on  the 
Canon  of  Scripture.  Hence,  even  were  there  noonday  evidence  of  the 
inspiration  of  those  books,  the  Jews  could  not,  at  least  according  to 
their  own  writers,  place  them  in  the  Canon.  It  was  not  necessary  that 
such  full  evidence  should  exist;  We  have  no  proof  that  it  did  exist ; 
though  that  some  evidence  was  in  possession  of  the  Jews  may  be  gath- 
ered from  the  facts  that,  as  Walton  isays,  they  were  united  in  the  same 
volume,  and  that  the  rabbins  hold  some  of  them  as  inferiorly  inspired. 
At  all  events,  it  is  evident  the  Jews  were  not  "guilty  of  an  outrageous 
fi-aud  in  regard  to  the  Sacred  Oracles ' '  in  not  inserting  those  works, 
even  though  they  be  inspired,  in  their  national  Canon. 


SECOND    LE'rrER   OF    A.    P.    F.  789 

Your  next  assertions  were,  that  "the  Saviour  and  His  Apostles 
aj)proved  of  the  Jewisli  Canon,  whatever  it  was,  and  appealed  to  it  as 
possessing  Divine  authority."  Had  they  gone  no  farther,  this  would 
not  have  militated  against  us.  I  might,  on  the  contrary,  ai>peal  to  it 
as  a  positive  Divine  sanction  of  the  fourth  method  of  my  preceding 
letter.  Still,  you  have  not  in  their  words  the  least  support  for  your 
assertions.  The  circumstances  from  which  you  would  wftr  it  exist 
sini])ly  in  your  own  ardent  imagination,  and  are  not  such  as  historical 
evidence  sustains. 

These  you  follow  up  with  another  .statement,  equally  unsupported  by 
their  words  or  the  facts  of  the  case,  that  "  the  Saviour  and  His  Apos- 
tles evidently  treated  the  Jewish  Canon  as  complete,  and  containing 
the  whole  of  God's  revelation  as  far  as  it  was  then  made."  For  this, 
l)recisely,  you  offer  no  proof  You  view  it  as  the  evident  consequence 
(if  the  other  items  of  argument.  They  fall  to  the  ground,  and  this 
must  (all  with  them. 

You  think  that  had  the  Jews  been  guilty  of  the  heinous  crime  with 
which,  in  case  these  books  are  insjnred,  you  tax  them,  the  Saviour  and 
His  Apostles  were  bound  to  denounce  this  particular  offence.  I  think 
it  would  have  been  sufficient  to  condemn  them  in  general  and  to  state 
some  of  their  errors,  without  being  hound  to  go  over  the  whole  list. 
He  proposed  the  truth  of  Christianity  in  general  for  their  acceptance. 
If  they  embraced  this,  the  acceptance  of  tho.se  books  would  have  fol- 
lowed, as  I  will  .show  it  did  follow  for  the  early  Christians.  We  know 
that  as  a  people  they  "received  Him  not."  He  came  not  to  reform 
the  Jewish  religion,  but  to  establish  another— that  which  it  foreshad- 
owed. He  might — as  He  did — condemn  i)articular  errors  and  abuses, 
but  the  end,  the  grand  aim,  of  His  preaching,  was  to  bring  them  to 
believe  in  Him  and  all  those  things  which  He  taught  His  Apostles 
personally  for  forty  days  after  His  resurrection,  or  by  the  Spirit  of 
truth  aftei-ward,  concerning  His  Church,  the  kingdom  of  God.  He 
never  declared  that  He  would,  and  we  see  no  reason  why  He  should, 
enumerate  and  condemn  every  abu.se,  or  that  He  wa.s  bound  to  single 
out  this  particular  error.  We  have  two  parallel  cases :  that  of  the 
Sanuiritans,  who.se  schism  or  en-or  He  condemned  in  John  iv.  22,  and 
of  the  Sadducees,  whom  both  He  and  St.  Paul  condemned.  Both 
were  heinou-sly  guilty  of  rejecting  inspired  writings  as  mere  human 
Iiroductions,  and  j-et  we  have  no  evidence  that  they  charged  them  with 
this  particular  en-or  or  sin.  Why,  then,  bind  them  to  do  so  in  regard 
to  the  Pharisees? 

You  finally  state  that  Christ  and  His  Apo.stles  did  nothing  in  regard 
to  those  books ;  and  this  j'ou  sustain  in  your  first  argiiment  by  saying 
there  is  not  in  the  New  Testament  any  record  of  the  fact,  and  in  your 
second  by  endeavouring  to  show  that  the  Christians  of  the  first  four 


790  APPENDIX    B. 

centuries  acted  in  such  a  manner  in  regard  to  those  books  as  thej'  cer- 
tainly would  not  have  done  if  the  Saviour  or  His  Apostles  had  given 
any  testimony  of  their  inspiration. 

I  might  answer  that  though  the  Saviour  did  not  establish  evidently 
the  inspiration  of  those  books  then,  He  could  have  done  it  after  four 
centuries  with  equal  facility,  either  through  such  a  body  of  individuals 
as  I  have  often  referred  to,  or  by  any  other  means  He  thought  proper 
to  use.  The  only  questions  for  us  would  be,  Did  He  adopt  those 
means?    What  are  the  books  the  inspiration  of  which  is  thus  declared? 

But  I  meet  your  assertion  directly.  In  my  next  I  will  show  that 
the  early  Christians  acted  in  regard  to  these  books  in  such  a  manner 
as  they  would  not  have  done  unless  they  had  been  received  from  the 
Saviour  or  the  Apostles  as  inspired.  We  find  nothing  in  the  Gospels 
or  Epistles  to  show  that  they  do  or  must  contain  all  that  the  Saviour 
or  Apostles  taught  or  did.  St.  Paul  taught  many  things  by  word,  as 
we  learn  from  himself  The  Saviour's  discourse  to  the  disciples  on 
the  road  to  Emmaus  and  a  full  account  of  all  His  conversations  with 
the  Apostles  after  His  resm-rection  would  be  very  valuable.  Among 
these  last  you  might,  reverend  sir,  find  something  bearing  on  the  num- 
ber of  inspired  books.  However,  until  you  have  all  He  said  to  the 
Jews  and  His  Apostles,  or  an  assurance  from  Him  or  them  that  this 
was  not  contained  among  the  things  omitted,  venture  not  to  assert  that 
because  He  did  not,  as  far  as  you  can  learn,  say  it  on  certain  occasions 
to  certain  persons.  He  never  said  it  to  any  one  at  all.  That  the  Sa- 
viour and  Apostles  did  do  something  in  regard  to  those  books,  I  opine, 
is  evident  from  the  texts  I  have  quoted,  else  plagiary  among  authors 
is  an  imaginary  crime.  The  identity  of  thought  and  the  similaritj', 
sometimes  copied  turn,  of  expression  prove  this  evidentlj'.  The  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case  support  it.  According  to  Walton,  the  collec- 
tion containing  these,  with  the  canonical  books  of  the  Jews,  was  in  the 
hands  both  of  the  writers  and  those  who  read  their  books.  The  sub- 
jects were  the  same.  In  their  writings  they  avowedly  quote,  adopt 
and  allude  to  the  language  and  thoughts  of  that  collection.  Those 
instances  show  that  such  allusions  were  made,  not  only  to  the  canoni- 
cal works,  but  also  to  those  you  deem  uninspired.  I  believe  with 
Walton,  that  the  Septuagiid,  as  that  collection  was  called,  contained 
those  books  before  the  coming  of  the  Saviour.  You  think  this,  if 
true,  strengthens  your  argument.  I  think  not.  If  those  books  thus 
united  were  uninspired,  the  Saviour  and  the  Apostles  were  certainly 
bound  positively  to  reject  them,  and  not  to  suffer  the  unnatural  union 
to  pass  into  the  Church.  Now  I  shall  show  that  as  far  back  as  the 
remnants  of  those  early  ages  will  carry  us  we  find  Christians  uniting 
them  both  in  the  Septuagiiit,  and  revering  both  as  divinely  inspired. 
This  very  omission  of  excluding  them,  taken  especially  with  the  de- 


THIRD    LETTER   OF    A.    P.    F.  791 

cidcd  belief  of  the  early  Christians,  is  a  strong  jn-oof  in  favour  of  the 
inspiration  of  those  books.  But  you  Jo  not  "believe  that  the  Septua- 
gint  at  the  Saviour's  time  contained  tlie  Apocrypha."  Reverend  sir, 
a  more  disastrous  avowal  you  could  not  have  made.  The  union  then 
took  ijlace  in  the  Church,  necessarily  under  the  eyes  and  with  the 
apin-obation  of  the  Apostles  and  their  immediate,  most  faithful  disci- 
ples. These  books  are  quoted  and  referred  to  as  divinely-inspired 
Scripture.  1  could  not  desire  a  stronger  case.  Before  the  Apostles 
the  conte.sted  books  were  not  inserted.  Immediately  afterwards  we  find 
them  already  inserted.  A  change  has  taken  place.  It  could  only  be 
efiected  by,  it  can  only  be  attributed  to,  the  Saviour  and  His  Apostles. 
Therefore,  they  DID  leave  these  works  to  the  Christian  world  as  in- 
spired.    I  remain,  reverend  sir,  yours,  etc.,  A.  P.  F. 


LETTER  III.  ' 

To  THE  Reverend  JAMES  H.  TIIORNWELL,  Professor  of  the  Evidences  of  Cbris- 

TIANITT,   ETC.  : 

Reverend  Sir  :  We  are  now  arrived  at  the  most  important  point 
in  the  examination  of  the  historical  evidences  in  favour  of  those  books, 
for  revering  which  as  "sacred  and  canonical"  you  charge  the  Catholic 
Church  with  blasphemously  adding  to  the  Word  of  God. 

Before  1  enter  on  the  task  of  laying  before  you  the  evidence  of  that 
character  in  favour  of  the  truth  of  the  decree  passed  by  the  Council  of 
Trent,  let  me  again  urge  on  you  the  al)solute  necessity  of  admitting 
the  Divine  authority  on  which  the  Church  based  it,  and  its  consequent 
truth.  By  denying  that  authority  you  at  once  overthrow  the  only 
means  whereby  the  overwhelming  majority  of  Christians  can  learn 
with  certainty,  and  on  which  they  can  be  required  to  believe  unhesi- 
tatingly, the  in.spiration  of  the  scriptural  books.  Even  did  there  exist 
no  historical  te.stimony  whatever  to  prove  the  truth  set  forth  in  that 
decree,  as  long  as  we  have  reasons  for  admitting,  and  are  forced  by 
necessity  to  admit,  the  authority  of  the  tribunal  from  which  it  ema- 
nates, the  inspiration  oftho.se  books  is  proved  to  our  understanding  by 
an  a  priori  argument  of  the  strongest  character. 

In  point  of  fact,  millions  on  millions  of  Christians  in  every  age  have 
believed  ami  nuist  still  hold  the  Scrii)tures  to  be  Divinely  inspired, 
simply  on  autliority.  How  many  are  there,  think  you,  even  among 
Protestants  in  South  Carolina,  who  believe  it— not  because  their 
l)arcnts  or  instructors  have  .so  taught  them  ;  not  because  it  is  the  gen- 
eral belief  of  persons  whom  they  esteem,  of  the  community  of  which 
they  are  members,  of  the  denomination  to  which  they  are  attached  ; 


792  APPENDIX   B. 

nor  yet  because  they  have  read  some  dissertation  like  yours,  wherein 
a  few  names  are  quoted,  some  books  in  Latin  or  German  referred  to, 
some  extracts  inserted,  and  then  a  sweeping  conclusion  drawn,  set  off 
with  a  tirade  of  hard  names  and  denunciations,  but  scarcely  warranted 
by  the  premises  and  wholly  unsupported  by  facts, — how  many,  I  ask, 
are  there,  even  among  Protestants,  who  believe  the  Scriptures  to  be 
inspired,  not  on  motives  like  these,  but  because  clear  and  .cogent  and 
really  valid  arguments  have  been  submitted  to  their  understandings? 
I  have  amused  myself  at  times  by  asking  those  who  assail  me  with 
texts  against  what  they  believe  are  our  doctrines  to  prove  the  books 
they  quote  from  to  be  inspired,  and  I  very  rarely  found  any  one  who 
knew  even  how  to  set  about  the  task.  They  believed  them  to  be 
inspired,  not  because  any  valid  argument  from  historical  or  internal 
evidence  had  been  laid  before  them,  but  because  they  had  been  brought 
up  and  led  by  education  and  authority  to  do  so.  Whether  by  acting 
thus,  notwithstanding  the  want  of  the  aforesaid  arguments,  they  fol- 
lowed a  course  that  was  not  "righteous  and  holy"  and  "ran  the  risk 
of  everlasting  damnation,"  I  leave  you,  reverend  sir,  to  decide.  To 
me  such  cases  are  but  particular  examples  of  a  general  truth  taught 
ahke  by  common  sense  and  experience — that  not  one  in  ten  thousand 
Christians  has  the  time,  the  means  and  the  ability  to  qualify  himself 
properly  for  that  arduous  research  and  to  prosecute  the  investigation 
of  that  mass  of  evidence  with  success.  Any  system  which  would  re- 
quire all  to  do  so  must  be  absurd,  for  it  supjwses  that  possible  which 
is  morally  impossible ;  and  false,  because  it  contradicts  the  infinite  wis- 
dom of  God  as  displayed  in  His  apportionment  of  men  in  the  various 
conditions  of  life.  Both  among  Catholics  and  Protestants  there  ever 
will  be,  there  must  be,  many  to  whose  understandings  no  valid  argu- 
ments from  reason  or  from  historical  evidence  for  the  inspiration  of 
Scriptm-e  will  ever  be  submitted — whose  condition  in  life  prohibits  it. 
Some  may  think  they  have  them  whose  reasons,  nevertheless,  for 
belief  are  anything  but  valid,  and  would  only  provoke  a  smile  from 
those  who  are  qualified  to  estimate  their  value.  If  God  requires  those 
millions  to  believe  that  inspiration  at  all.  He  requires  them  to  believe 
it  on  authority,  for  in  no  other  manner  can  they  learn  it.  And  unless 
His  works  be  imperfect.  He  has  given  an  authority  to  teach  them  this 
doctrine  whose  teaching  constitutes  the  necessary,  clear,  cogent  and 
valid  argument  which  is  to  be  laid  before  their  understandings.  Now 
in  the  Protestant  system  there  is  no  such  authority  to  teach  this  truth, 
none  which  any  one  is  bound  to  hear,  or  at  least  none  which  may  not 
lead  to  error,  and  none,  therefore,  whose  teaching  necessarily  gives 
truth  with  unerring  accuracy  and  leaves  no  room  for  reasonable  doubt 
and  hesitation.  In  this  system  God  would  not  have  provided  any 
means  whereby  those  can  learn  certainly  and  unerringly  the  inspiration 


THIRD    LETTER   OF    A.    P.    F.  793 

of  the  Scripture,  who  are  by  tlieu-  circumstances  unavoidably  restricted 
to  the  use  of  authority  alone  on  this  question.  In  the  Catholic  sys- 
tem, on  the  contrary,  this  hiatus  in  the  works  of  God  does  not  exist. 
An  authority  is  estiiblished  by  Kim  to  teach  this  truth,  and  in  fulfill- 
ing that  commission  is  guarded  by  His  Omnipotence  from  falling  into 
error.  The  evidence  of  the  commission  itself  and  of  the  guarantee  from 
error  is  before  the  world.  Christians  are  required  to  believe  the  Scrip- 
tures to  be  inspired  on  that  authority,  and  in  believing  they  have  an 
assurance  from  Divine  Truth  and  Omnipotence  that  they  err  not. 
Historical  evidence  may  or  may  not  exist  to  corroborate  the  declara- 
tion of  that  authority.  Those  who  believe  may  or  may  not  possess  it. 
To  them  it  is  a  secondary  collateral  proof  placing  the  doctrine  not  in  a 
firmer  position,  but,  if  you  will,  in  a  stronger  light.  A  practical  illus- 
tration adds  nothing  to  the  certainty  of  a  theorem  established  by 
mathematical  demonstration.  If  this  collateral  testimony  were  not  in 
the  possession  of  the  person  whose  belief  is  required,  or  even  were  it 
not  in  existence,  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  taught  would  remain  un- 
changed and  the  obligation  of  believing  it  equally  strong. 

Nay  more :  a  person  is  still  bound  to  believe  even  when  seeming 
arguments  which  he  cannot  refute  are  urged  to  the  contrary.  Com- 
mon sen.se  tells  him  that  what  is  known  and  proved  to  be  true  by  one 
method  of  demon.stration  cannot  be  shown  to  be  really  false  by  another 
— that  truth  is  never  opposed  to  truth.  Experience  would  tell  him 
that  there  is  no  doctrine  against  which  words  cannot  be  arraj'cd.  He 
may  find  objections,  the  fallacy  or  falsehood  of  which  he  cannot  point 
out,  brought  against  the  inspiration  of  any  or  of  all  the  books  so 
declared  to  be  inspired.  But  he  knows  that  the  authority  which  pro- 
claims them  inspired  teaches  truth,  and  that  whatever  contradicts 
truth  must  be  erroneous.  He  is  bound  still  to  believe.  Men  act  thus 
every  day  in  matters  of  life,  and  they  are  forced  to  cany  out  the  prin- 
ciples also  in  doctrines  of  Christianity.  Let  me  illustrate  it  by  an 
example. 

You  hold,  revei'end  sir,  that  God  has  declared  and  requires  every 
one,  even  the  unlettered  negro,  to  believe  unhesitatingly  that  there 
are  three  Divine  Persons  in  one  God.  Now  the  negro,  debarred  by 
law  from  learning  to  read,  cannot  peruse  his  Bible ;  cannot  (leaving 
aside  the  question  of  inspiration)  decide  whether  certain  texts  (among 
them  the  strongest,  perhaps  the  only  decisive  one,  on  the  Trinity)  be 
interpolations,  as  most  Protestant  critics  have  determined  that  of  1 
John  V.  7  to  be ;  cannot  collate  all  the  texts  on  the  subject,  and  pro- 
nounce unerringly  that  in  them  God  has  made  such  a  declaration. 
He  must  learn  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  from  authority.  He  is 
bound  to  believe  it  unhesitatingly,  because  God,  who  cannot  declare  an 
untruth,  has  declared  it;  and  the  Catliolic  would  add,  common  sense 


794  APPENDIX    B. 

requires,  because  the  authority  which  communicates  to  him  that  dec- 
laration of  God  is  prevented  by  Divine  Omnipotence  from  teaching 
that  He  declared  what  in  flict  He  did  not.  An  Unitarian  might  say 
to  the  negro:  "You  are  told  that  the  Father  is  distinct  from  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  from  both;  they  are  three  distinct  Persons. 
Now,  if  the  Father  is  God,  and  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  God,  they  must,  therefore,  be  three  Gods  and  not  one  God ;  and  to 
say  that  three  distinct  Persons  form  only  one  God  is  as  absurd  as  to 
say  that  three  men  form  one  individual.  God  could  not  have  said  so, 
for  He  cannot  say  anything  absurd,  and  anj'body  that  tells  you  He  did 
say  so  leads  you  into  an  error."  Even  a  negro  would  see  the  force  of 
this  objection.  Can  he  lay  bare  the  sophism?  In  the  Catholic  system 
his  answer  would  be  clear  and  satisfactory:  "  My  mind  is  feeble;  I 
cannot  by  reasoning  reply  to  what  you  say;  but  here  is  a  tribunal 
which  God  has  appointed  to  teach  me  what  doctrines  He  has  declared, 
and  which  He  will  not  permit  to  mistake.  That  tribunal  tells  me  that 
He  has  declared  this  doctrine,  and  when  He  declares  it,  it  must  be 
true  and  not  absurd,  and  therefore  1  believe  it,  though  I  cannot  refute 
j'our  arguments."  If  on  the  Protestant  principle  he  believed  that  the 
authority  which  had  taught  him  the  Trinity  could  propose  doctrines 
which  were  false,  and  could  assert  that  God  had  taught  what  in  truth 
He  did  not  teach,  I  confess  that  I  do  not  see  what  answer  the  negi-o 
could  make,  or  how  he  could  reasonably  continue  in  an  unhesitating 
belief  of  the  Trinity. 

I  oi)ine,  too,  that  even  the  most  learned  theologian  would  find  him- 
self in  the  same  predicament.  It  would  puzzle  him  to  explain  how 
three  Divine  Persons,  each  of  them  God,  can  only  constitute  one  God, 
while  three  human  persons  must  constitute,  not  one,  but  three  beings. 
He  can  only  seek  to  establish  the  fiict  that  God  did  declare  this  to  be 
the  case.  Now  I  certainly  believe  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  firmly 
as  I  do  my  own  existence.  But  could  I  leave  aside  the  authority  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  could  I  believe  that  it  was  possible  for  her  to 
declare  that  God  has  revealed  a  doctrine  which  He  has  not,  I,  for  one, 
would  not  admit  this  mystery,  for  the  simple  reason  that  except  through 
her  I  have  no  positive  assurance  that  it  is  one  of  the  doctrines  revealed 
by  Almighty  God.  The  strongest  text,  as  I  said  above,  is  rejected  by 
most  Protestant  critics  as  supposititious.  Were  it  not,  it  is  suscepti- 
ble of  another  and  very  different  sense.  So,  too,  are  all  the  other 
texts  urged  in  favour  of  this  dogma.  The  Unitarians  strongly  and 
earnestly  urge  these  views.  And  in  perusing  several  Protestant  trea- 
tises on  the  subject  I  have  not  met  a  Trinitarian  who.  in  my  opinion 
at  least,  could,  without  some  one-sided  appeal  to  the  authority  of  the 
Church  to  decide  the  question,  overthrow  their  positions  or  make  out 
for  himself  more  than  a  ]ilausible,  perhaps  a  probable,  case.     Deprived 


THIRD  LETTER  OF  A.  P.  F.  795 

of  the  authoritative  teaching  of  tlio  Catholic  Church,  I  would  not,  on 
ujere  plausible  or  probable  evidence,  yield  an  unhesitating  belief  in  so 
astoinidiiig  a  uijstery  as  this,  or  exjiose  myself  to  the  danger  of  Idol- 
atry by  adoring  as  God  one  who  might  prrlutps  be  after  all  a  mere 
creature.  I  thank  Heaven  I  am  not  left  in  this  perplexity  or  unbelief. 
Though  I  cannot  refute  mcta])hysically  all  the  metajihysical  objections 
against  the  august  mystery  of  the  Trinity,  though  ray  researches  of 
mere  historical  testimony  or  simple  examination  of  the  Scrijjture  would 
not  lead  me  to  the  certain  and  evident  conclusion  that  God  did  reveal 
it,  I  have  His  revelation  unerringly  preserved  by  those  the  Saviour  sent 
to  teach  all  that  He  had  taught,  even  as  He  was  sent  by  the  Father. 
Them  I  hear  as  I  would  hear  Him.  On  His  authority  and  their  tes- 
timony 1  believe  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  firmly  and  unhesitatingly, 
despite  of  unsolved  sophisms,  and  bend  the  knee  to  adore  Jesus  Christ 
as  the  Eternal  God,  no  dark,  horrific  doubt  flashing  the  while  through 
my  mind  that  perliapa  He  is  but  a  creature  and  I  am  staining  my  soul 
with  the  damning  sin  of  Idolatry. 

To  apply  this  to  the  subject  of  my  letter :  If  Almighty  God  has 
been  pleased  to  establish  a  tribunal  with  authority  to  declare  uner- 
ringly, in  His  name,  what  books  are  sacred  and  canonical,  we  arc  bound 
to  receive  unhesitatingly  as  the  Word  of  God  the  books  designated  as 
such  by  that  tribunal,  even  though  we  possess  not  collateral  proof 
from  historic  or  intrinsic  evidence  to  sustain  it.  We  would  be  equally 
bound  to  receive  them  did  no  historical  evidence  whatever  exist ;  nay, 
even  if  objections  which  we  have  not  the  means  of  solving  could  be 
lu-ged  against  the  insi)iration  of  some  or  of  all  of  those  books. 

I  luxve  shown  in  my  first  letter  that  every  Christian  at  least  must 
admit  that  God  did  establish  such  a  tribunal.  When  that  is  estab- 
lished, collateral  testimony  is  of  secondary  imi)ortance.  Had  the  flood 
of  time  swept  away  every  record  of  the  early  Church,  as  it  has  swept 
away  many,  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent  would  still  stand. 

I  have  made  these  prefatory,  perhaps  discursive  remarks,  that  our 
readers  may  see  the  natiu'C,  the  bearing  and  the  value  of  historical  tes- 
timony in  fuvovu-of  the  inspiration  of  the  books  which  Catholics  admit 
as  insi)iied,  and  you  reject  as  of  no  more  authority  than  Seneca's  Let- 
ters or  Tully's  Ofiices. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  redeem  the  promise  made  towards  the  close 
of  my  last  letter,  and  to  show  that  the  early  Christians  acted  in  such  a 
manner  in  regard  to  those  books  and  i)arts  of  books  as  they  would  not 
have  done  T'NLKSS  the  Saviour  and  Tlis  Apostles  had  left  them  to  the 
early  Church  as  inspired.  Here,  reverend  sir,  we  are  fairly  at  vari- 
ance. 1  will  give  your  second  argument  in  your  own  words.  [Here 
A.  P.  F.  quotes  Dr.  Tliornwell's  .^^econd  argument] 

This,  reverend  sir.  might  strike  a  reader  altogether  unacquainted 


796  APPENDIX    B. 

with  those  early  times  as  very  forcible,  and  nearly,  if  not  quite,  "  irre- 
sistible." A  second  perusal  of  j-our  essay  would  show  him  that  much 
as  you  seem  to  have  kept  the  matter  out  of  sight,  even  in  those  fir.>^t  four 
ages  there  were  at  least  two  sides  to  the  question,  whereas  your  argu- 
ment is  grounded  on  the  assertion  that  the  unbroken  testimony  of  the 
Church  during  all  this  time  was  against  the  inspiration  of  those  books. 
St.  Jerome,  you  state,  informs  us  that  the  Christians  were. exposed  to 
ridicule  from  the  Jews  for  the  respect  in  which  they  held  one  part  of 
what  your  arguments  affirm  uninspired  writings.  Now  St.  Jerome 
wrote  before  the  year  400,  and  that  respect  might,  for  aught  you  say, 
be  some  remnant  of  a  tradition  from  the  Apostles  regarding  their 
inspiration.  Those  decisions,  too,  which  you  spoke  of,  made  in  their 
favour  by  bodies  of  which  St.  Augustine  was  a  member,  occurred  also 
before  the  year  400.  Might  they  not  be  other  remnants?  But,  reve- 
rend sir,  to  one  who  is  acquainted  with  those  early  days  of  the  Church 
it  must  be  a  matter  of  astonishment  how,  if  you  had  read  five  authors 
of  those  times  (and  if  3'ou  had  not,  you  should  not  make  your  second 
argument  so  boldly),  you  could  assert  unqualifiedly  and  emphatically 
"that  for  four  centuries  the  unbroken  testimony  of  the  Christian 
Church  is  against  their  inspiration. ' ' 

I  assert  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  manner  in  which  the  Christians 
of  the  first  four  centuries  acted  in  regard  to  those  writings  shows  that 
they  were  left  to  them  by  the  Apostles  as  inspired.  I  presume  you 
will  admit  that  while  these  early  Christians  were  tried  in  the  furnace 
of  persecution,  and  laid  down  their  lives  by  thousands  rather  than 
swerve  one  jot  or  tittle  from  the  trath  handed  down  to  them,  they 
would  not  throughout  the  world  unite  in  "  blasphemouslj' adding  to 
the  Word  of  God. ' '  If  they  united  in  receiving  those  works  as  in- 
spired, then  is  our  cause  fully  sustained,  for  they  would  not  have  thus 
united  unless  they  had  been  taught  by  the  Apostles  that  those  books 
formed  part  of  the  Word  of  God.  You  have  appealed  to  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Church  for  the  first  four  centuries.  You  shall  have  it. 
Would  that  you  may  abide  by  its  award  ! 

In  the  first  place,  all  those  books  or  parts  of  books  were  contained 
in  the  Old  Testament  as  used  by  the  early  Christians  in  the  infancy  of 
the  Church.  That  they  all  existed  at  the  time  of  St.  Jerome,  and  at 
his  day  formed  part  of  the  Old  Testament,  cannot  be  denied.  At  the 
proper  place  I  will  speak  of  his  views  on  their  inspiration.  At  present 
let  us  investigate  facts.  The  Latin  Vulgate  as  used  then  contained 
them.  Now,  reverend  sir,  if  it  be  made  evident  that  those  works 
were  received  universally  and  from  the  earliest  day  into  the  body  of 
the  Old  Testament,  j'our  assertion  that  there  is  no  remnant  of  any  tra- 
dition does  liv^:  coincide  with  the  fact.  At  what  time  were  those  works 
joined  to  the  canonical  works  of  the 


THIRD    LETTER   OF    A.    P.    F.  797 

ciept,  jierliaps,  Wisdom  and  tlie  second  book  of  Maccabees,  were 
originally  written  in  Hebrew  or  Chaldaic,  as  their  frequent  Semitic 
idioms  evidently  show.  St.  Jerome  translated  Tobias  and  Judith 
from  the  Chaldaic,  and  declares  that  he  saw  Ecclesiasticus  and  Mac- 
cabees in  the  original  Hebrew.  Baruch  with  the  Pipistle  of  Jeremiah 
)»ear  tlu-  indelible  impress  of  their  Hebrew  origin.  Origen  declares 
emiihatically  that  the  i)arts  of  Estlier  and  Daniel  you  reject  were  in 
the  versions  of  the  Septuagint  and  of  Theodotion.  We  know  that 
Theodotion,  whom  St.  Jerome  calls  a  Jndaizing  heretic,  translated 
from  the  Hebrew  into  Greek,  and  his  version  of  Daniel  containing 
those  parts  is  that  anciently  adopted  by  the  Greek  and  Latin  churches, 
and  still  followed  entirely  by  the  first,  and  in  those  parts  by  the  latter. 
This  clearly-ascertained  origin  at  once  shows  that  the  works  were  prior 
to  the  Saviour.  If  the  Christians  had  written  them  afterward,  which 
this  general  adoption  forbids,  they  would  have  done  it  in  Greek  or 
Latin — their  languages.  The  book  of  Wisdom  and  the  second  book 
of  Maccabees  are  allowed  by  all  sane  critics  to  be  incontestably  anterior 
to  the  Saviour.  The  translation  of  the  HcImcw  works  into  the  Greek 
for  the  use  of  the  Hellenist  Jews  is  also  allowed  to  have  taken  place 
before  the  Saviour's  time.  Without  attempting  now  to  prove  this  at 
length  in  regard  to  every  book,  especially  as  you  have  not  denied  it,  I 
will  again  content  myself  with  referring  to  Walton,  who  declares  that 
those  works  were  first  received  by  the  Hellenist  Jews,  although  it  can- 
not be  a.^certained  at  what  time  they  were  joined  in  one  volume  with 
the  Jewish  canonical  works,  but  that  this  much  is  certain,  that  the 
Church  received  them  with  the  rest  of  the  Scripture  from  those  Hel- 
lenist Jews.  I  said  the  transfer  was  made  with  the  approbation  of 
the  Apostles,  who  in  writing  their  inspired  Epistles  had  manifestly 
used  those  works.  I  will  now  prove  it  by  the  versions  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament among  the  Christians.  Taking  the  Septuagint  or  Greek  ver- 
sion alone.  I  cannot  see  what  valid  arguments  can  be  adduced  to  prove 
that  it  did  not  contain  those  works  in  the  beginning.  Not  the  omis- 
sion of  them  in  coi)ies,  for  the  oldest  entire  manuscripts  contain  then). 
Not  any  testimony  of  some  ancient  writer,  for  as  far  as  they  bear  wit- 
ness it  did,  and,  as  I  will  show  farther  on,  they  quote  those  identical 
works.  But  there  is  another  insurmountable  objection  to  your  opin- 
ion and  an  irrefragable  proof  of  my  proposition  Two  versions  were 
made  of  the  Scriptures  immediately  after  the  death  of  the  Apostles — 
the  Latin  for  the  use  of  the  Western  Christians,  from  the  Greek,  and 
the  Syriac,  from  the  Hebrew  and  Greek,  for  those  of  the  East.  Both 
contain  those  works. 

We  are  informed  that  many  ver.<ions  or  amended  versions  cxi.sted 
among  the  Latins,  but  that  there  was  one  called  the  vetits  Itahi  vul- 
f/af(i,  the  ancient  Italian,  and  commonly  adopted  one,  the  fir.st  of  all, 


798  APPENDIX    B. 

and  probably  the  groundwork  of  the  others.  x\s  far  back  as  manu- 
scripts and  notices  of  this  version  in  writers  will  carry  us,  we  find  it 
containing  those  books.  Blancliini  has  publislied  part  of  it,  but  the 
work  is  not  in  Charleston.  The  book  of  Psalms,  both  books  of  the 
Maccabees,  WLsdom  and  Ecclesiasticus  aiffl  the  parts  of  Esther  a.9 
now  used  in  the  Western  Church  are  of  this  original  version. 

The  Peshito,  or  ancient  simple  Sj'riac  version,  contained  those  works. 
Walton  has  inserted  in  the  fourth  volume  of  his  Polyglot  the  whole 
of  them,  except  the  portions  of  Esther,  and  part  at  least  of  these  has 
been  since  found. 

This  version,  made — as  is  allowed  by  all  Oriental  scholars,  if  not  in 
the  first,  at  least  in  the  beginning  of  the  second,  century — a  few  j-ears 
after  the  death  of  St.  John,  is  taken  from  the  Hebrew  and  Greek. 
Theodotion,  who  translated  passages  of  Daniel  from  the  Hebrew,  now 
lost  in  that  language,  executed  his  versions  at  a  later  period  than  that 
assigned  by  the  learned  to  the  Syriac  translation.  At  his  day  those 
parts  existed  in  Hebrew.  St.  Jerome  saw  several  of  the  other  books  you 
contest  in  Hebrew  or  Chaldaic,  and  the  word  he  uses,  repei-i,  shows  that 
copies  of  them  were  then  extremely  rare  ;  they  have  since  perished. 
Now,  in  looking  over  the  Syriac  version  of  those  works,  you  will  see  that 
some  are  taken  from  the  Hebrew,  where  probably  it  could  be  found, 
and  others  from  the  Grreek,  where  the  work  was  written  originally  in 
that  language,  or  the  Hebrew  might  not  probably  have  been  at  hand. 
The  Syriac  version  of  Tobias  and  Judith  apparently  follows  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  or  possibly  both  may  be  directly  translated  from  the  original, 
which  is  now  lost.  The  version  of  St.  Jerome,  also  from  the  original, 
follows  avowedly  the  sense,  not  the  words,  of  the  Chaldaic  or  Hebrew, 
and  cannot  guide  us  in  determining  which.  The  portions  of  Esther  in 
Syriac  were  not  in  the  possession  of  Walton.  They  are  found  in  the 
Septuagint  and  the  Vulgate.  I  said,  however,  that  parts  of  them  at 
least  have  since  been  discovered  in  the  Sj'riac.  In  Wisdom  and  Eccle- 
siasticus the  Syriac  agrees  with  the  Septuagint,  and  appears  to  have 
been  translated  from  it.  On  the  contrary,  Baruch  with  the  Epistle  of 
Jeremiah  appear  to  have  been  translated  into  SjTiac,  not  from  the 
Grreek  of  the  Septuagint,  but  from  the  Hebrew  original,  now  no  longer 
extant.  So,  too,  the  Peshito  Syriac  vei-sion  of  the  contested  parts  of 
Daniel  is  taken,  not  from  the  Septuagint,  but  from  the  original  He- 
brew, whence  Theodotion  at  a  later  period  took  them.  There  are 
many  evidences  of  this.  For  example,  in  the  History  of  Susannah 
the  Greek  says  that  two  ancients  were  appointed  judges,  while  the 
S3a-iac  has  two  priests.  Now  the  original  Hebrew  word  was  undoubt- 
edly cohenim,  which  signifies  both  priest  and  prince,  or  ancient.  The 
Syriac  translator  took  the  Hebrew  word  in  one  sense  and  the  Greek  in 
another.     This  difference  would  not  have  happened  had  the  Syriac 


THIItl)    LHTTER   OF    A.    P.    F.  799 

been  taken  simply  from  the  (rreek.  On  a  oomi)aiison  of  the  first  and 
second  books  of  Maccabees  in  the  ttreek  and  in  the  Sjniac  version,  it 
will  be  evident  that  the  second  book  in  Syriac  is  taken  from  the  Greek, 
while  it  seems  more  probable  that  the  first  is  from  the  kindred  He- 
brew. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  inmicdiately  after  the  days  of  the  Apos- 
tles, in  the  first  or  beginning  of  the  second  century,  when,  according 
to  Walton,  Wiseman  and  the  best  scholars,  the  Syriac  and  Latin  ver- 
sions were  made,  the  Christians  did  not  think  that  no  books  were  con- 
tained in  their  Old  Testament  except  those  inserted  by  the  Synagogue 
in  the  Jewish  Canon.  Whether  the  whole  Christian  world  could  have 
united  in  embodying  the  books  you  object  to  in  their  body  of  Scriptures 
without  some  testimony  from  the  Apostles  to  that  effect,  I  leave  you 
and  my  readers  to  judge.  I  believe,  as  I  said,  with  Walton,  that  those 
books  were  united  to  the  Jewish  canonical  books  by  the  Hellenist  Jews 
before  the  days  of  Christianity,  and  that  they  came  already  united  into 
the  Church.  The  Apostles,  as  I  showed  in  my  last,  allude  to  and 
incorporate  passages  and  phrases  from  these  works  into  their  own 
writings.  We  have  just  seen  that  the  early  Septuagint  and  the  two 
other  versions  made  by  Christians  in  what  you  will  allow  were  the 
purest  and  palmiest  daj-s  of  Christianity  contained  them.  Even  were 
I  to  give  that  these  books  were  not  united  to  the  others  before  the 
time  of  Christ,  this  concession  would  but  increase  j'our  difficulty  and 
display  more  strikingly  the  difference  between  the  Jewish  and  the 
Christian  Old  Testament — a  difference  which  could  only  arise  from  the 
teaching  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles. 

But.  you  may  say,  if  this  be  so,  the  early  Christian  writers  would 
quote  those  books.  It  is  natural,  reverend  sir,  that  if  they  wrote 
nmch  they  should  sometimes  do  so,  and  that,  if  their  works  be  pre- 
served in  any  quantity,  we  should  find  such  quotations  therein.  And 
tec  do  find  them. 

We  have  a  portion  of  the  authentic  writings  of  four  Christians  befi^re 
the  year  100 :  St.  Barnabas  the  Apostle's  catholic  Epistle,  St.  Poly- 
carp's  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  St.  Ignatius'  Epistles,  and  a  consid- 
erable portion  of  St.  Clement's  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  and  a 
fragment  of  his  second  Epistle  to  the  same. 

Now  in  this  small  collection,  the  earliest  of  the  Christian  writings, 
we  have  several  quotations  fnnn  those  books. 

1.  St.  Barnabas,  in  |  6  of  his  Epistle,  has  the  following  passage: 
"But  what  saith  the  Proi)het  against  Israel?  Woe  be  to  their  soul! 
because  they  have  taken  wicked  counsel  against  themselves,  saying, 
Let  us  lay  snares  for  the  righteous,  because  he  is  unprofitable  to  us." 
This  pas-sage  is  composed  of  the  two  text><,  Isaias  iii.  9,  "Woe  to  their 
soul,  for  evils  are  rendered  to  them,"  and  Wisdom  ii.  12,  "Let  us 


800  APPENDIX   B. 

tliereforo  lie  in  wait  for  the  just,  because  he  is  not  for  our  turn." 
Here  St.  Barnabas  quotes  in  the  same  sentence,  and  as  of  equal  in- 
spired authority,  the  book  of  Isaias,  contained  in  the  Canon  of  the 
Jews,  and  that  of  Wisdom,  one  of  those  you  boldly  declare  to  be  of 
no  more  authority  than  Seneca's  Letters  or  Tully's  Offices. 

2.  Towards  the  end  of  the  same  Epistle  the  apostolical  writer  says : 
"Thou  shalt  not  be  forward  to  speak,  for  the  mouth  is  the  snare  of 
death.  Strive  with  thy  soul  for  all  thy  might.  Reach  not  out  thy 
hand  to  receive,  and  withhold  it  not  when  thou  should.st  give. ' '  What 
is  this  but  a  quotation  of  Ecclesiasticus  (iv.  33,  34,  36),  another  of  the 
books  of  3'our  heathen  category?  "  Strive  for  justice  for  thy  soul,  and 
even  unto  death  fight  for  justice,  and  God  will  overthrow  thy  enemies 
for  thee.  Be  not  hasty  in  thy  tongue,  and  slack  and  remiss  in  thy 
works.  Let  not  thy  hand  be  stretched  out  to  receive  and  shut  when 
thou  shouldst  give." 

3.  St.  Polycarp's  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  comes  next.  In  the 
tenth  section  he  has  the  following  passage :  "  When  it  is  in  your  power 
to  do  good,  defer  it  not,  for  charity  delivereth  from  death.  Be  all  of 
j^ou  subject  to  one  another,  having  your  conversations  honest  (or  in-e- 
proachable)  among  the  Gentiles."  St.  Polj'carp,  like  St.  Barnabas, 
quotes  in  the  same  breath  an  author  whom  you  admit  as  inspired,  and 
one  whom  you  reject,  and  condemn  Catholics  for  revering  with  him. 
"For  alms  delivereth  from  death."  Tobias  xii.  9.  "Having  your 
conversation  good  among  the  Gentiles."  1  Pet.  ii.  12. 

There  are  one  or  two  passages  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Ignatias  which 
seem  to  me  to  imply  quotations  from  the  books  in  question,  but  as 
they  are  not  so  clear  and  striking  I  omit  them.  I  find,  too,  that  sev- 
eral authors  refer  to  a  passage  speaking  of  Daniel  and  Susannah,  but 
as  it  is  not  in  the  copy  before  me,  I  consider  it  most  probably  one  of 
the  interpolations  foisted  into  the  saint's  writings  in  after  j^ears.  We 
will  leave  him,  then,  and  take  up  the  other  writer. 

4.  In  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  ?  27,  St.  Clement,  fourth 
bishop  of  Rome,  has  the  following  passage :  "  Who  shall  say  to  Him, 
What  dost  thou?  or  who  shall  resist  the  power  of  His  strength?" 
These  words  are  taken  from  Wisdom  xi.  52  and  xh.  12:  "For  who 
shall  say  to  thee.  What  hast  thou  done?"  "And  who  shall  resist  the 
strength  of  thy  arm?" 

5.  In  I  55  he  writes  thus:  "And  even  many  women,  being  strength- 
ened by  the  grace  of  God,  have  done  many  glorious  and  manly  things. 
The  blessed  Judith,  when  her  city  was  besieged,  desired  the  elders 
that  they  would  suffer  her  to  go  to  the  camp  of  the  strangers,  and  she 
went  out,  exposing  herself  to  danger  for  the  love  she  bore  to  her  coun- 
try and  her  people  that  were  besieged.  And  the  Lord  delivered  Holo- 
femes  into  the  hands  of  a  tcoman.     Nor  did  Esther,  being  perfect  in 


TIIIUD    LETTEIi    OF    A.    P.    F.  801 

faith,  expose  herself  to  any  less  liazanl  for  the  delivery  of  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel  in  clanger  of  being  destroyed.  For  by  fasting  and  hum- 
bling herself  she  entreated  the  great  iMaker  of  all  things,  the  God  of 
ages,  who,  beholding  the  huiuility  of  her  soul,  delivered  the  people  for 
whose  sake  she  was  in  peril."  The  passage  speaks  for  itself  I  may 
say  that  the  words  marked  in  italics  are  extracted  from  the  sublime 
canticle  of  Jmlith  (xvi.  7).  In  his  account  of  Esther,  too,  St.  Clement 
evidently  had  in  his  mind  not  only  the  passage  in  Hebrews  iv.  16,  v. 
2,  but  the  prayer  of  Esther  (xiv. ),  one  of  those  portions  which  you 
reject,  with  which  every  word  he  uses  admirably  tallies. 

I  have  been  admonished  not  to  encroach  too  much  on  the  columns 
of  the  ^liscellany,  and  must  conclude  here  for  the  present. 

"We  have  sctn  that  the  Old  Testament  in  the  infancy  of  the  Church, 
and  from  one  extremity  of  the  Christian  world  to  the  other,  whether 
in  SjT-iac,  in  Greek  or  in  Latin,  contained  the  books  which  the  Cath- 
olic Canon  now^contains,  and  which  you  would  have  us  exclude.  We 
have  seen  three  out  of  the  four  first  Christian  writers  quoting  them 
unequivocally,  j)recisely  as  they  quote  the  other  books  of  the  Scripture, 
making  no  distinction  whatever.  Add  to  this,  if  you  please,  the  pas- 
sages enuuierated  in  my  last  letter,  wherein  the  inspired  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  have  evidently  used  those  works,  and  then  withdraw 
your  thoughtless  assertion  that  "  the  unbroken  testimony  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  is  against  their  inspiration." 

I  will  in  my  next  take  up  some  Christian  writers  of  the  second  cen- 
turj',  and  shall  show  that  they  also  quoted  those  works  as  parts  of  the 
Scripture.     3Ieanwhile,  I  remain,  reverend  sir. 

Yours,  etc.,  A.  P.  F. 

Vol.  III.— 51 


APPENDIX  C. 


COLLECTION  OF  THE    PASSAGES    IN  WHICH    DK.  LYNCH 

HAS  KEPKESENTED    THE  FATHERS  AS    QUOTING   THE 

APOCRYPHA. 

N.  B.  The  first  column  gives  the  name  of  the  author  and  the  book;  the 
second,  the  passages  which  are  simply  quoted  or  accommodated ;  the  third, 
those  which  are  quoted  with  some  marks  of  distinction,  as  scripture.  Divine 
scripture,  or  under  the  name  of  a  prophet;  the  fourth  gives  merely  allu- 
sions to  the  contents  of  the  book,  or  assumes  its  history  to  be  true. 

Some  few  passages  may  have  been  omitted,  as  the  syllabus  has  been  pre- 
pared in  great  haste. 


Names    of   the    Fathers 
and  of  their  Works. 

Apocryphal    passages 
which   are    simply 
quoted. 

Those  quoted  as  scrip- 
ture or  Divine  scrip- 
ture. 

Allusions 

to 
Apocrypha. 

JUSTIN  MARTYR. 

1  Apol    '6  -14 

Ecclus.  XV.  14-18. 

Wisdom  vi.  20. 
Baruch  iv.  36,  37. 
Daniel  xiii.  56.  52,  53. 
"       xiv.  3,  4,  24. 

Ecclus.  xxi.  6;  1.21, 22. 

Ecclus.  xxi.  20. 
"        xxxviii.  1. 
"        xxxix.  26,  27. 
"        XXV.  6. 

Wisdom  iii.  2-8  (as  Di- 
vine Wisdom). 

Wisdom  V.  2-5  (under 
name  of  Solomon). 

Wisdom  iii.  14,  a.s  Sol. 

Bar.  iv.  4;  iii.  4,  as  Jer. 
"    iii.  16-19. 

Tobias  xii.  8. 

IREN^US. 

Contra  HtEreR.,l.iv.c.38. 

lib.  V.  c.  35. 

lib.iv.c.26. 

lib.  iv.c.5.. 

CLEMENS  AT.EX. 

PKdag.,  lib.  i.  c.  8 

"        lib.  i.  c.  9 

"        lib  ii  c  5 

Ecclus.  XXX.  8. 

"        lib  ii  c.  8 

"        lili  iii  c.  3 

«'           lib  vi 

Pmdag.,  lib.  i.  c.  10 

"        lib  ii  c.  3 

Strom    lib  vi 

TERTULLIAN. 

Judith  viii.  1. 

Wisdom  i.  1,  as  Sol. 
"       i.  1,  as  Sol. 

Ecclus.  XV.  18. 

Bar.  vi.  3,  4,  5,  as  Jer. 

De  Anima,  c.  15.. 

De  Virst.  Vel.,  c.  13 

Cont.  Marc,  c.  5 

Wisdom  i.  6. 

.    «       viii.21. 
Ecclus.  XV.  18. 

Scorpia5um.„ 

802 


APPENDIX   C. 


803 


Names    of   the  Fathers 
and  of  their  M'orks 

Apocryphal    passages 
which    are    simply 
quoted. 

Those  quoted  as  scrip- 
ture or  Divine  scrip- 
ture. 

Allusions 

to 
Apocrypha, 

TERTCLLIAN. 

DeCoroii  Milit.,  C.  4 

De  Idol    c  18 

Daniel  xiii.  32. 

DunicI  xiv 

De  Jejun.,  c.  9.: 

"     xiv.  82, 38. 

De  Pm-scrip.,  c.  13 

CYPRIAN. 

Tost,  ad  Qiiir.,1.  iii.c.l. 
1.  iii.  c.  6. 

DeMort>.li.,c.7 

De  Orat   Doni    c  21 

'2  Mac  viii.  28. 

Tobias  ii.  2;  iv.  6-12. 
"      ii.  14. 
"      xii.  15. 

Tobit.  xii.  8. 

Wisdom  iii.  4-8. 
"       iv.  11-14. 
V.  1-8. 
V.  8. 
"       iii.  4-8. 
Ecclus.  ii.  1-4. 
"      iii.  30. 
"      xxviii.  28. 
"      vii.  29,  31. 
Daniel  xxv.  34. 

De  Op.  et  Eleemos..  o.  4. 

Toblt  xii.  8. 

De  Habit.  Virg.,  c.  7 

\d  Itojjat 

De  Alurtal    c  5 

De  Op.  ct  Eleemos.,  c.  2. 

Ad  Rogat 

De  Unit   Eccles    c   11 

Daniellil.4»-00. 

■ 

Daniel  iii.  51. 
xiv.  4. 

De  Orat,  Dom    c  14 

"       xiv 

De  Op.  et  Eleemos.,  c.  8. 
Epist    40 

"      xiii. 

Test,  ad  Qiiir.,  i.  ii.  c.  6. 

Bar.  iii.  35-37,  as  Jer. 
"     vi.  6. 

Test.  adQuir.,l.iii.c.4. 
lib.  iii.  c.  17. 

lib.  iii.  c.  3... 

2  Mac.  ix.  12;  ii.62,63. 
2  Mac.  vi.  30;  vii.  9, 14, 

16,  17,  18,  19. 
1  Mac.  ii.  60. 

2Mac.vl.<flldvf. 

niPPOLYTUS. 

Baruch  ui.  36-38. 

Tobit  xii.  7. 
Wisdom  i.  5,  6. 

DIONYSUS  OF  ALEX- 
ANDRIA. 
Epist  ad  Germ 

Gout  Paul  Samosat 

APOS.CONSTITUTIONS. 

Lib  viii.  c  1 

>■      xiv 

Lib  V  c  20 

Baruch  iii.  36-38. 

"       iv.  4. 
Wisdom  ui.  1. 

POPE  SIRICICS. 
Epiet.  ad  Ilimmer.,c.7. 

JULIUS  FTRMICUS  MA- 
TEKNUS 

Wisdom  1.  4. 

Wisdom  XV.  15-17,  as 

Solomon's. 
Baruch  vi.  5-9,  as  Jer. 
"       vi.21.25,3;l,81, 

64,  50  and  67. 

EPHREM     THE     SYR- 
IAN. 

Daniel  ix.  7. 
•'      Iii.  40. 
"      iii.  89. 
"       iii.  60. 
"      Iii.  33. 

De  Virfiit.,  C.3 

Denun.il.,c.9 

Paricns.,  9 

DeOrat 

804 


APPENDIX   C. 


Names    of   the    Fathers 
and  of  their  Works. 

Apocryphal    passages 
wliich   are    simply 
quoted. 

Those  quoted  as  scrip- 
ture or  Divine  scrip- 
ture. 

Allusions 

to 
Apocrypha. 

EPHREM     THE     SYR- 
IAN. 
De  Psenit   c  23 

Daniel  iii. 

Parsen.  ad  Mouegit.,  c. 

Daniel  xiii.  52. 

Daniel  xiii. 
"      xiii. 
"      iv.  32-36. 
"      iv.  32-38. 

De  Muliere     

De  Rect  Viv  Nat    c  85 

Tobit.xii.f. 

Bar.ix.4and20;iii.38. 

Wisdom  iv.  12. 

Wis.  iv.  7, 8,  9 ;  v.  1-16. 

"    iii.  1,6,  9. 

"    ii.  21,  22. 

Wisdom  XV.  12. 

V.  18-24. 
Ecclus.  ii.  15- 

"       XXV.  13;  iii.  7; 
xviil.  30  and  31. 
Eccl.xi.5;iv.7;vii.4ft 
"    vi.  30. 

Advs   Levit    

De  Hiimil    c  94 

Wisdom  vi.  9. 
i.  12. 

Exhort    40 

•'         46    

Ecclus.  xxxii.  1;   viii. 

6,  7  ;  xxxi.  5. 
Ecclus.  vi.  18. 

Ecclus.  iv.  25,  26. 

2  Mac.  vi. 
"      vi. 

BASIL  THE  GREAT. 
Cont.  Eunoiu.,  lib.v.,  c. 
15  3  2         

Wisdom  i.  4. 

Wisdom  i.  7. 

"      ix.  1,  2,  as  Sol. 

"       i.  4, 7. 

"       i.  4,  as  Sol. 

«       vi.  7. 

Baruch  iii.  32,  as  Jer. 

Cont.  Eunom.,  c.  14,  g  2. 

Epist.  8,  a  12  and  11 

Horn   12. 

Wisdom  i.  7. 



DeSanc.Spir.,c.2.3,§54. 

Wisdom  i.  7. 
Daniel  xiii.  50. 

"       iii.  40. 

"       iii.  38,  39. 
Esther  xiv.  11. 

Horn,  in  40  Mart.,  §  6... 

Epist.  243,  3  43 

Cont.Uuain.,lib.2,§19. 
"         "4  c.  3. 

DeSanc.Spir.,c.8,§19. 

Judith  ix.  4. 

2  Mac.  vii. 

Horn.  Deut.,  c.  5,  9 

Hexam.  Horn.,  6,  910... 

Ecclus.  ix.  20. 
"      xxvii.  12. 

Ecclus.  xxxii.  22. 

Ecclus.  xviii.  26 ;  xi.  5. 
"       xix.  16. 
"       ii.  1-5. 

"       XV.  17  and  15. 
Ec.  i.  20;ix.l0,asSol. 
Ecclus.  xvi.  3. 

Wisdom  xiv.  8. 

"       xvi.  28. 
vi.  7. 

"       iv.  8,  9. 
Baruch  iii.  36,  37,  38. 

"       iii.  36,  37,  38. 

CHRYSOSTOM. 

Ecclus.  ii.  1,  2. 
"       V.  8. 
"       xiv.  2. 

Exhort.  2  ad.  Tlieod 

Horn.  18,ad.  Pop.Anth. 
De  Fato 

Hom.l5,adPop.  Anth.. 
Serm.  1  in  Act.  Apost... 

De  Virginitat,  c.  22 

Serm.  in  Calondas 

Wisdom  V.  ale. 

"       iii.  1. 

Horn,  in  Ept.  Ileb.  7 

Cont  Jnde  et  Gent 

Horn.  3,  ad  Pop.  Anth... 
Horn.  60  in  Joan 

Esther  xiv.  13. 

[tioncd. 
Judith         men- 

Horn.  13  in  Epis.  Ileb... 



Tobit.  iv.  7. 

APPENDIX   C. 


805 


Names    of   tlio    Fathers 
aud  of  their  Works. 

Aiiocryplial    passages 
which    aro    simply 
quoted. 

Those  quoted  as  scrip- 
ture or  Divine  scrip- 
ture. 

Allusions 

to 
Apocrypha. 

CIIRYSOSTOM. 

Horn.  9  in  Epis.  Ileb. 
Horn.  5,  Nous.  Auom.... 

Cout.  Judo  ctOent 

H.ini.  in  Pentecost,  1.... 
Iloui  15  in  1  Cor 

Toblt.  iv.  11. 
Daniel  xiii.  52. 

Ecclus.  xxvi.  12. 
"       xxxii.  13. 
"     •  iv.  8. 
"       ii.  5. 
Wisdom  i.  6. 
Wi8.iv.8,9;  xiv.7,8. 
"     ii.  12,  as  Sol. 
"     vii.  7,     " 
Baruchiv.  26;  v.  27,  as 

Jeremiah. 
Baruch  iii.  24,  25. 
"      iii.  1. 
"      iii.  29,  30. 
Dan.  iii.  56,  68,  67,  74. 

Daniol  iii.  23. 
"      iii.  38. 
"      iii.  38. 

Horn.  18          "     

Daniel  iii.  29,30. 

"     iii.  29, 30, 39, 32; 
xiv.37. 

Horn.  2  in  Philem 

AMRROSE. 

In  Nabotli.,c.  8 

•     Tract,  do  42 

Josepli    . 

Ilextem.  lib.  3  c.  14.... 

In  Tobit 

Hexwni.,  lib.  ii.c.4 

fUefer  to  Story 
{     of  Susannah 
(Refer    to     Bol 
\    and  Dragon. 

Do  Officiis    lib.  ii  c  9 

Joseph.,  c.  5 

Jacob    lib  i  c  8 

Elias.  c.  9 

De  Officiis  c  13  and  14 

Judith  viii.  C. 

Refer  to  Judith 

Jacob    lib   ii  c  9  ..     . 

2  Mac  vi  &  vii 

PAULINUS  OF  NOLA. 
Exhort,  ad  Cclant 

Eccl,  iv.  25-28 ;  xxviii. 

28,29;  iii.  20. 
Ec.xxxviii.l6;xvii.l8. 
Ec.vii.  16;  Wis.  viii.  1. 
Ec.  xix.  15. 
Ec.  V.  8. 
Wisdom  iv.  7 ;  Baruch 

iii.  18, 19. 

Epist.adPamach.,  37... 
"    30 

"    39 

"    37 

INDEX. 


Abiutt,  natural,  of  man  maiDtained  by 
Rome,  384. 

AnsoLi'TB,  The,  the  error  of  German  and 
Frt-ucli  speculation  as  to,  9S ;  disastrous  re- 
sults of  the  philosophy  of,  148. 

Activity,  Morull's  theory  of  spontaneous,  as 
constituting  the  essence  of  mind,  discussed, 
89;  Morell's  view  of  spontaneous,  aa.  the 
criterion  for  distinguishing  substance  from 
attributes,  91. 

Adam,  dependent  upon  revelation  foraknow- 
ledpre  of  (iod,  UIO  (note);  analogy  between, 
and  Christ,  3Sd;  double  union  between,  and 
his  seed,  :Wa. 

Alcuin,  bis  account  of  the  consecration  of 
the  water  of  baptism,  289. 

Alexankria,  testimony  of  Synod  of,  as  to 
.\pocryphii,  687. 

Amurose,  view  of,  as  to  form  of  administering 
biiptism,  296;  testimony  of,  as  to  Apocry- 


7oy. 


Amphilociiics,  testimony  of,  as  to  Apocry- 
pha, 729. 

Analysis,  as  related  to  synthesis.  127. 

Anoradius,  doctrine  of,  iis  to  free-will,  383. 

Antinomiamsm,  what,  345. 

Apocalvpsk,  omission  of,  by  Council  of  Laodi- 
cea  explain.-d,  7:!9. 

Apocrypha,  d.-cn f  Council  of  Trent  as  to, 

423  (notf);  allfned  quotations  of,  by  New 
Testanicnt  writers  examined,  659;  quota- 
tions from,  wonlil  not  establish  inspiration 
of,  ■-.67;  not  found  in  .lewish  Canon,  569; 
how  introduieil  into  Sepluagint,  if  at  all, 
597:  how  introduced  into  Ancient  Ver- 
sions of  Scripture,  Oil;  application  of 
terms  Scrijiture,  Divinf  Srripture,  etc.,  to, 
e.xplained,  028 ;  authority  of,  in  early 
Church  not  same  as  that  of  inspired 
Scriptures,  tViO;  not  found  in  early  cata- 
logues of  inspired  writings,  640;  testi- 
mony of  the  Fathers  in  favour  of,  exam- 
ined, 6j4:  testimony  of  tlie  Fathers  against, 
adduced,  711. 

Apostolic  Commission,  nature  of  the,  52. 

APOSTOLIC  CoxsTiTL'Tio.Ns,  supposed  testimony 
of,  for  Apocrypha,  670. 

Aquinas,  views  of,  as  to  miracles,  230,  235, 
271  (notes). 

Aristotle,  doctrine  of,  as  to  formal  and  flnal 
caus<-8,  2S5. 

Atii\nasiu!<,  testimony  of,  as  to  Apocryplia, 
074.  6S4,  722. 

Atheism,  the  issue  between,  and  the  Bible, 
the  rnal  issue  raisfd  by  Rationalists,  27 ; 
jiortraiture  and  rebuke  of,  204;  Church 
of  Kuine  patron  of,  517. 

Ato.nement,  »h  a  sjitisfaction  to  justice  utter- 
ly iguored  by  Morell,  26;  doctrine  of  lim- 


ited, implies  a  supernatural  revelation,  205; 
Ronntnist  doctrine  of  Christ's,  as  meriting 
for  us  a  new  trial  on  foot  uf  personal  right- 
eousness, 357;  particular,  inseparable  from 
effectual  grace  and  free  jnstilicalion,  382. 

Attributes  of  substance  nut  absolutely,  but 
relatively,  conceived,  114. 

Augustine,  view  of,  wi  to  the  analogy  of  the 
sacraments,  300  ;  testimony  of,  as  to  Apoc- 
rypha, 669,  694. 


Bacon,  Lord,  maxim  of,  as  to  the  relation  of 
man  to  nature,  84, 199;  remark  of,  touch- 
ing the  ])ositiou  of  Christiaidty  as  to  the 
office  of  reason,  183;  remark  of,  as  to  the 
superiority  of  faith  to  knowledge,  188; 
view  of,  as  to  ofhce  of  reason  in  regard  to 
revelation,  200;  opinion  of,  as  to  supernat- 
nral  character  of  the  morality  of  the  Gos- 
pel, 2(17  ;  opposition  of  philosophy  of,  to 
that  of  Rationalists,  218;  remark  of,  as  to 
miracles,  264. 

Baius.  doctrines  of,  condemned  by  Pope  Pius 
v.,  386. 

Baptism,  what  constitutes  valiility  of,  284 ; 
essential  elements  of,  285;  essential  ele- 
ments of,  not  found  in  that  of  Rome, 
287;  matter  of,  corrupted  by  Rome,  287; 
threefold  Romanist  classification  of  cer- 
emonies of,  288 ;  form  of,  295 ;  form  of, 
destroyed  by  Rome,  298 ;  nature  of  rela- 
tionship involved  in,  not  truly  taught  by 
Rome,  299;  of  Rome,  not  a  profession 
of  truths  of  the  Gospel,  328:  aduunistra- 
tion  of,  to  non-profi'ssors  of  the  Gospel  null 
and  void,32'J;  creed  of  recipient  of  Roman- 
ist, determined  by  the  animus  impnni^itix, 
XiZ ;  reception  of  Romanist,  subjection  to 
whole  system  of  Rome,  33.3:  of  Rome,  a 
profession  not  merely  of  Christianity,  but 
of  Popery,  333:  of  Rome,  protested  against 
by  the  Reformers  on  account  of  the  faith 
profe.ssed  in  it,  .333. 

BARNAUts,  alleged  quotations  by,  of  Apocry- 
pha as  Scrijiture,  examined,  617. 

Barrow,  appealed  to  miracles  aa  proofs  of 
the  Divine  existence,  229. 

Basil  of  Cebarea,  alleged  quotations  by,  of 
Apocrypha  as  Scripture,  examined,  707. 

Brino,  science  of,  in  it.self  impossible,  12. 

Belief,  lundamental  laws  of,  til;  relation  of 
experience  to  fundamental  laws  of,  81 ; 
criteria  of  the  fundniuental  laws  of,  137  ; 
the  ground  of,  in  revelation  and  in  our 
own  facidties,  157:  source  of  authority  of 
funilameiilal  laws  of,  IS7. 

Bellarmimk,  doctrine  of,  that  God  cannot 
effect  contradictions,  194;  tipiu  ii]ttrutum, 
doctrine  of,  3o6,  312 ;  strictures  of,  on  Lu- 


807 


808 


INDEX. 


ther'g  ^^ew  of  the  Bacramenfs  as  seals,  320 ; 
testimony  of,  to  Lutheran  view  of  tlie  sac- 
raments, 324,  326 ;  view  of,  tliat  recipients 
of  Konianist  baptism  distinctively  profess 
roiKiy,  333;  doctrine  of,  as  to  justification 
by  grace,  349,  352;  doctrine  of,  as  to  ofiBce 
of  works  in  justification,  355;  doctrine  of, 
as  to  office  of  Christ's  merits  in  justifica- 
tion, 360 ;  doctrine  of,  as  to  free-will,  383, 
386;  doctrine  of,  as  to  efficacious  grace,  391 ; 
doctrine  of,  as  to  justifying  faith,  396;  doc- 
trine of.  as  to  the  seven  acts  preparatory 
to  justification,  398 ;  doctrine  of,  as  to  su- 
pernatural origin  of  faith,  403;  doctrine 
of,  as  to  the  cause  of  certainty  of  faith,  403; 
testimony  of,  as  to  the  Apocryphal  books 
of  Ksdras,  689. 

Benevolknce  of  Christianity  and  of  Nature 
different  principles,  211. 

Bible.  The,  the  destruction  of,  the  great  end 
of  Kationalist  theories,  18,  23;  the  issue 
between,  anil  Atheism,  the  real  issue 
raisiil  by  Itatic.nalists,  27;  the  verbal  in- 
spiiiiiiiiii  111,  Til  ;  and  the  Spirit  the  great 
priiiiipk'  of  I'mtestant  Christianity,  180; 
ruiuuiLs  results  of  abandoning  the  suprem- 
acy of,  181. 

Bingham,  his  account  of  the  consecration  of 
the  water  of  baptism,  287. 

BR.iNDT,  his  history  of  the  Reformation  quoted 
as  to  creed  of  the  Remonstrants,  392. 

Burnet,  Bishop,  view  of,  as  to  the  validity  of 
baptism,  299. 

Bl'TLEii.  liisiioi',  (  pinion  of,  as  to  the  imagin- 
ation, ly.;-.  <i|iiiikin  of,  as  to  the  relation  of 
reasuii  tn  r.v.lation,  195,  204;  entitled  to 
be  tallfil  Jiidirimis,  195;  distinction  of,  be- 
tween natural  and  supernatural  religion 
criticised,  210  ;  observation  of,  as  to  mira- 
cles, 263;  humility  of  true  philosophy  ex- 
hibited by,  268. 


C.4JETAN,  Cardinal,  testimony  of,  as  to  Apoc- 
rypha, 704. 

Calvin,  opinion  of,  as  to  the  sacraments  of 
Rome,  303. 

Canon,  meaning  and  use  of  the  word,  422, 
573;  manner  of  original  funiiation  nf.  ,'>V7  ; 
of  Jewish  Church  ijut  (K-f.Ttivf,  fiS4 ;  nf 
Jewish  Church  recc.oniz.nl  by  Christ  as 
complete,  684;  true  relation  of  Ezra  tu  the, 
580. 

Canonical,  indefinite  use  of  term  by  Council 
of  Carthage,  699. 

Canoxicity  and  inspiration  inseparable,  574. 

Canonization  or  Saints,  a  relic  of  Pagan  su- 
jierstitiun,  522. 

Carthaoi'^  testimony  of  Council  of,  as  to 
Aponypha.  f.sT. 

Casu  11  \.  t.-tiiii.iiiv  of,  as  to  Pagan  origin 
of  i;uii,i-h  iiivM,iii.s,  521  (note). 

Catholic,  the  Cliiiich  of  Rome  not,  417. 

Cadse,  man  as  an  undetermined,  92;  law  of, 
different  from  that  of  substance,  147  ;  con- 
fusion of,  with  substance,  makes  God  the 
only  sub.stance  in  the  universe,  147  ;  the 
denial  ol.  a  result  of  the  philosophy  of  the 
Absolute,  149. 

Certainty,  when  common  consent  is  a  crite- 
rion of,  137. 

CiiANCK,  the  doctrine  of,  as  causal,  sclfcon- 
tia.lii-tury,  93. 

CiiAUiTV,  false  notions  of,  exposed,  415. 

Christ,  analogy  between,  and  Adam,  385; 
double  union,  federal  and    personal,  be- 


tween, and  His  seed,  385;  the  all-in-all  of 
salvation,  399;  silence  of,  as  to  the  Apocn- 
pha,  584. 

Christian,  mode  by  which  a  man  becomes  a, 
33;  the  making  of  a,  confounded  by  Ra- 
tionalists with  the  giving  of  a  revelation, 
159, 108  ;  what  it  is  to  be  a,  177  ;  two  senses 
of  the  term,  330. 

Christiamtv,  nature  of,  as  a  particular 
scheme  of  religion,  178  ;  the  Spirit  and  the 
Bible  the  great  principle  of  Protestant, 
180;  compared  with  Ileathenism  and  Mo- 
hammedanism as  to  truth,"  183-186;  dis- 
tinction between  its  claiming  to  be,  and  its 
being  proved  to  be.  Divine,  184;  does  not 
absolutely  interdict  reason  in  religion,  185 ; 
distinctive  principles  of,  contradictory  to 
distinctive  principles  of  ancient  philoso- 
phy, 186;  indiscreet  zeal  of  certain  writers 
in  advocacy  of  external  evidences  of,  190; 
internal  evidences  of,  those  most  common- 
ly employed  in  testing  religious  systems, 
191 ;  mysteries  of,  revealed  to  the  meek, 
197 ;  distinction  between  distinctive  and 
incidental  elements  of  197;  self-authenti- 
cating, 203;  reasonableness  of,  203;  in- 
volves the  direct  intervention  of  God,  226; 
truths  of,  dependent  upon  a  Divine  testi- 
mony capable  of  objective  proof,  227. 

Chrysostom,  testimony  of,  as  to  Apocrypha, 
708. 

Church,  The,  position  maintained  by,  as  to 
Chrisiiaiiitv  and  the  Scriptures  against  in- 
fidelity, 226;  relation  of,  to  the  State,  540, 
556 ;  true  value  of  testimony  of  the  Primi- 
tive, 605 ;  real  testimony  of  the  Primitive, 
as  to  Apocrypha,  711. 

Clement  XI.,  Pope,  condemned  doctrines  of 
grace  held  by  Quesnel,  388. 

Clement,  John,  opinion  of,  as  to  Romanist 
baptism,  334. 

Clement  of  Rome,  alleged  quotation  by,  of 
Apocrypha  as  inspired,  626. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  testimony  of,  as  to 
Apocrypha,  651. 

Commencement,  doctrine  of  an  absolute,  93. 

Commission,  nature  of  the  Apostolic,  52;  ar- 
gument against  a,  to  the  sacred  writers,  did- 
russed,  57. 

Com  eption,  adequately  represents  our  intui- 
tions, 113;  office  of,  121. 

CoN.s(iouSNESs,  nature  of,  101;  Morell's  ac- 
count of  the  logical,  discussed,  110;  Mo- 
rell's distinction  between  the  logical  and 
the  intuitional,  discussed,  123 ;  distinction 
between  knowledge  furnished  by  tlie  logi- 
cal as  reflective,  and  the  intuitional  as 
spontaneous,  discussed,  124;  distinction  be- 
tween knowledge  obtaineci  by  the  logical 
as  material,  and  that  by  the  intuitional  as 
formal,  discussed,  126;  the  matter  of  the 
logical  and  of  the  intuitional,  ultimately 
the  same,  126;  distinction  between  the 
logical,  as  tending  to  separation,  and  the 
intuitional,  to  unity,  discussed,  127:  anal- 
ysis and  synthesis  both  belong  tu  the  logi- 
cal, not  tile  intuitional,  127  :  distiiKtion 
between  the  logical,  as  inili\  idiial.  ami  the 
intuitional,  as  generie,  iii>ens>etl.  129;  re- 
sults of  both  the  logical  aiel  the  intuition- 
al, admit  of  coni|iarisoii  w  iili  the  eoiiinion 
judgments  of  the  race,  \:\1:  the  logical, 
susieiitible  of  iiiiiToveMieiil,  l."4  :  llie  logi- 
cal anil  the  intuitional,  eini.ill.v  in<lividual  . 
and  <'quallv  genetic,  loi'i;  disiiiiction  be- 
tween the  logical,  as'  fi.xed,  and  the  intui- 
tional, as  progressive,  discussed,  139 ;  Mo- 


INDEX. 


809 


rell's  account  of  the  connection  between 
the  logical  niid  the  intuitional,  discussed, 
141;  tlie  lip(;ioal,  docs  not  cure  the  disor- 
dt-rs,  but  siiii|ileiiieut8tho  dcfects.of  the  in- 
tiiitiiiiiiil.  14 J;  the  veracity  of,  the  indis- 
peusalile  condition  of  all  knowledge,  2no; 
no  contradiction  between  teHtimony  of,  to 
the  fact  of  miruclea  and  to  the  uniformity 
of  nature,  256. 

Constance,  treachery  of  Council  of,  toward 
John  IIuss,  462. 

Constantinople,  testimony  of  Council  of,  as 
to  Apocrypha,  687. 

Councils,  General,  at  first  called  by  empe- 
rors and  acting  by  their  authority,  48.1;  not 
acknowledged  as  infallible,  483  ;  names  of 
those  which  endorsed  the  supremacy  of  the 
Pope,  547. 

Covenant  op  Qrace  is  supernatural  religion, 
210  (note);  distinguished  from  Covenant 
of  Works,  351. 

Covenant  of  Works  is  natural  religion,  210 
(note);  distinguished  from  Covenant  of 
Grace,  351. 

Cousin,  theory  of,  as  to  the  impersonality  of 
reason,  87,  90, 138;  distinction  of,  between 
reflection  and  spontaneity  commended, 
136  ;  his  reduction  of  the  laws  of  thought, 
147  ;  doctrine  of,  as  to  substance  and  the 
infinite,  2G5. 

Cramp,  his  text-book  of  Popery  quoted  as  to 
the  doctrines  of  Trent.  392. 

Creation,  denial  or  admission  of  fact  of,  af- 
fects the  whole  current  of  philosophy,  265. 

Creed,  religious  truth  ought  to  be  reduced  to 
the  form  of  a,  251 ;  a,  when  saving,  o45 ; 
a,  which  affirms  Justification  by  law  not 
saving,  346. 

CUDWORTH  employed  miracles  as  proofs  of 
God's  existence,  229;  his  twofold  distribu- 
tion of  miracles  as  to  the  power  necessary 
to  work  them,  243,  246. 

Cyprian,  testimony  of,  as  to  Apocrypha,  665. 

CvRiL  OP  Jerusalem,  testimony  of,  as  to 
Apocrypha,  726. 

D. 

Death,  spiritual,  the  scriptural  account  of, 
172.  173,  366;  spiritual,  distinguished  from 
extinction  of  the  moral  nature,  366;  spir- 
itual, removal  of,  impossible  without  re- 
union with  God,  367. 

Deists,  position  of  the  English,  221. 

Dens,  his  exposition  of  Komanist  theories  as 
til  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  308;  doc- 
trine of,  as  to  inherent  efficacy  of  the  sac- 
raments, 315 ;  doctrine  of,  as  to  obstacles 
in  receiving  sacraments.  317 ;  doctrine  of, 
as  to  relative  value  of  Christ's  merits  and 
man's  merits  in  justification,  359;  doctrine 
of,  as  to  animate  and  inanimate  rules  of 
faith,  404. 

Depravity,  effect  of  Morell's  Bcheme  upon 
doctrine  of,  26;  nature  of  and  effects  of, 
n)iun  the  soul,  173;  distinguished  from 
guilt.  361 ;  total,  distinguished  from  despe- 
rate wickedness,  366. 

Des  Cartes,  doctrine  of,  as  to  the  essence  of 
the  soul,  95. 

Devii.8  txmietimes  speak  truth,  246;  cannot 
work  true  miracles,  248. 

DioNVSius,  alleged  quotation  by,  of  Apocry. 
pha  a.s  iiispiri'd,  676. 

Dominicans.  The,  ductiine  of,  as  to  grace 
and  the  human  will,  3'-5. 

Duelling,  statute  of  Council  of  Trent  as  to, 
o4H. 


DlTRAND,  his  account  of  the  consecration  of 
the  water  of  baptism,  2>8,  292. 

Ddty,  distinction  between  moral  and  posi- 
tive, 211. 

E. 
Eppectcal  Cailwo,  doctrines  of  Rome  as  to, 

378-392;   tho  sole  origin  of  suviug  faith, 

401. 
ElcuuoRN,  Infidel  theory  of  school  of,  223. 
Election,  doctrine  of,  implies  a  supernatural 

revelation,  205;  inseparable  from  effectual 

grace  and  free  justilication,  382. 
Enuland,  Bishop,  his  description  of  the  Bor- 

vico  of  the  Mass,  375. 
EpiPHANios,  testimony  of,  as  to  Apocrypha, 

Ephrem  the  Syrian,  testimony  of,  as  to  Apoc- 
rypha, 705. 

Erasmus,  compliment  of  Luther  to,  381 ;  de- 
testable doctrine  nf,  as  t,i  implicit  faith  in 


anti 


Error,  definiii  1  ^  i.  •  nu  secure  us 
from,bvaMil  i    i  .  ..n  the  soul, 

72;  severity  „■■.■.-.,,,   ,n  n  hukii.g,  414. 

Evidence  of  intrin-ie  pinl.abllity  does  not 
destroy  the  possibility  of  the  knowledge 
of  miracles,  255;  all  real,  grounded  in  the 
Divine  testimony,  187 ;  internal,  of  re- 
ligious systems  that  are  most  commonly 
employed  in  testing  them,  191 ;  chief  in- 
ternal, of  revelation  derived  from  its  mys- 
teries, 209. 

Eusebius,  testimony  of,  as  to  Apocrypha,  084. 

Experience  is  the  origin  of  knowledge,  80; 
sensationalist  theory  of,  80;  relation  of,  to 
the  fundamental  laws  of  belief,  81;  the 
school  of,  described,  82;  difference  between 
the  school  of,  and  that  of  Kationalisni,  85. 

EZKK,  the  synagogue  of,  a  myth,  578;  true 
relation  of,  to  the  Canon,  581. 


Faculty,  no  new,  communicated  to  the  soul 
by  grace,  170. 

Faith,  the  essence  of  a  sinner's  religion,  153, 
171,  173,  17s ;  how  produced,  154;  the 
Word  of  tiud  tlie  slaiidani  of,  and  the  me- 
dium tlu<iii;:h  wliich  it  is  engendered,  154 ; 
not  the-  neeessary  result  ot  the  contact  of 
the  mind  with  revealed  li  nth,  171 ;  saving, 
not  the  product  of  intuition,  171;  only 
possible  in  a  holy  heart.  173;  the  compre- 
hensive nature  and  office  of,  178  ;  distinc- 
tion between,  and  kiiowlwlge,  104;  distinc- 
tion between,  and  orilinary  forms  of  as- 
sent, 188;  superiority  of,  to  knowledge 
and  opinion,  188;  not  contrary  to  reason, 
'202;  in  Divine  authority  of  the  Christian 
religion  not  neces-sarily  true  faith  in 
Christ,  248;  cau.ses  which  invalidate  a  pro- 
fession of,  337 ;  fatal  unsoundness  of  creed 
of  Koine  as  to,  393;  whole  applicatiim  of 
redemption  conditioned  on,  o93:  import- 
ance of,  393;  office  of.  ;595;  |ieiuliar  effi- 
cacy of,  what  due  to.  395;  juslillcation  by, 
alone,  39K;  the  instrument  of  uiiicui  with 
Christ,  399;  nature  of,  399;  ground  of,  399; 
evidence  of,  supernatural,  399;  origin  of, 
supernatural,  399;  reason  of,  the  illumina- 
tion of  the  llolv  .spirit.  401 ;  difforeuce  be- 


401. 


Fall,  TiiK.  nth.  t«  eviiv  fariillv  of  the  soul, 

75;  inllueiiie  of,  upon  reason.  1K9. 
Fatm.ist,  philosophic  doctrine  of  the,  93. 
Fathers,  The  Apostolic,  value  of  testimony 


810 


INDEX. 


of,  606;  quotation  by,  of  Apocrjpha  no 
proof  of  tlieir  inspiration,  613;  citations 
from,  as  to  Apocrjplia  examined,  617. 

Fathers,  The  Christian,  testimony  of  those 
of  second  century  as  to  Apocrypha,  644 ; 
third  century,  665 ;  fourth  century,  677  ; 
testimony  of,  against  Apocrypha  adduced, 
711. 

FiCHTE,  his  melancholy  confession  of  the  de- 
lusiveness of  his  iJiilosophy,  150. 

France,  Reformed  Church  of,  doctrine  of,  as 
to  Romanist  baptism,  334. 


Gelastds  Ctcicenus,  testimony  of,  as  to  de- 
cree of  Council  of  Nice  concerning  the 
Apocrypha,  678. 

Gop,  power  of,  to  communicate  by  inspira- 
tion an  autlioritative  theology  denied  by 
Kationalists,  21 ;  can  secure  us  from  error 
by  a  subjective  influence,  72;  supernatural 
influence  of,  may  affect  all  the  human  fac- 
ulties, 74;  dependence  of  man  upon,  75; 
power  of,  boldly  limited  by  Rationalists, 
75;  man's  knowledge  of,  not  presentative 
and  immediate,  106,  151;  our  knowledge 
of,  intuitive,  106;  belief  in,  the  condition 
of  our  knowing  ourselves  and  the  world, 
107;  doctrine  of  the  impersonality  of,  a  re- 
sult of  the  philosophy  of  the  Abso'lute,  149 ; 
true  grouuds  to  us  of  the  certainty  of  the 
existence  of,  151 ;  moral  character  of,  ulti- 
mate ground  of  our  confidence  in  the  trust- 
worthiness of  our  faculties,  157;  the  testi- 
mony of,  the  immediate  objective  ground 
of  religion,  157;  the  testimony  of,  only 
source  of  knowledge  as  to  distinctive  doc- 
trines and  facts  of  Christianity,  166;  the 
relations  sustained  by,  in  natural  religion 
and  the  Gospel  quite  different,  210  (note)  ; 
personality  of,  a  revealed  element  of  natu- 
ral religion,  210  (note) ;  personal  commu- 
nications of,  to  men  the  ground  of  the  pos- 
sibility of  miracles,  253;  moral  government 
of,  a  <(itiiiu  object  of  knowledge,  270; 
moral  f;,,v(  riiijiciit  of,  a  school,  270. 

Gospel,  The,  natiue  of,  155,  166,  174;  the 
terms  nt,  intelligible  by  our  natural  facul- 
ties, 171 ;  comparison  between,  and  Ration- 
alism, 178;  the  phraseology  of,  deceptively 
appropriated  by  Rationalists,  179;  igno- 
rance of  its  supernatural  truths  no  argu- 
ment against,  204;  embraced  in  the  three- 
fold record  of  the  Spirit,  the  Water  and 
the  Blood,  344. 

Government,  Moral,  religion  grows  out  of 
relations  involved  in,  164;  confirmed  by 
the  pnmary  dicta  of  consciousness  and  the 
analogies  of  life,  166;  practically  rejected 
by  Rationalist  opposers  of  the  letter  of 
Scripture,  167  ;  of  God,  an  object  of  certain 
knowledge,  270;  of  God,  a  school  for  an- 
other state  of  being,  270. 

Grace  creates  no  new  faculties  of  the  soul, 
170;  justification  bj',  according  to  Rome, 
is  justification  by  its  effects,  350;  justifica- 
tion by,  as  the  free  favour  of  God,  con- 
demned by  Trent,  350 ;  characteristic  prin- 
ciple of,  3.52;  sense  in  which  the  term  is 
employed  in  the  Scriptures,  353;  imparted 
to  Adam  in  innocence,  353;  falsely  claimed 
by  the  Pharisee  as  the  ground  of  accept- 
ance, 353;  inherent  righteousness,  accord- 
ing to  Rome,  is  infusion  of,  362;  relation 
of,  to  the  will.  380 :  antithesis  of  human 
Sovereignty,  3S1;  etfectual,  and  free  justi- 


fication inseparable,  382;  the  doctrines  of 
the  hope  of  the  human  race,  i82;  efficacy 
of,  denied  by  Rome,  382-^92. 

Gregory  XIII.,  1'ope,  confirmed  the  Bull 
condemning  the  doctrines  of  Raius,  387. 

Gregory  of  Valentia,  doctrine  of,  as  to  the 
supernatural  origin  of  faith,  402. 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  testimony  of,  as  to 
Apocrypha,  728. 

Guilt,  distinction  between  and  depravity, 
361;  those  affected  by,  incapable  of  recti- 
tude, 364;  removal  of,  necessary  in  order 
to  repentance,  364. 

H. 

Hamilton,  Sir  W.,  his  definition  of  philosophy, 
79;  dissent  of  the  author  from  the  doctrine 
of,  as  to  causation,  94  (note) ;  exalted  trib- 
ute to,  96:  his  view  of  philosophy  as  the 
science  of  the  conditioned  and  relative,  9ti. 

Harding,  cliarge  of,  against  the  Protestant 
sacraments,  304 ;  doctrine  of,  as  to  the  in- 
herent efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  316. 

Heathenism,  description  of,  as  the  offspring 
of  imagination,  183. 

IIeber,  Bishop,  quoted  as  to  the  sufficiency 
of  the  Scriptures,  471  (note). 

Hegel,  philosophy  of,  unavoidable  if  creation 
be  denied.  265. 

Hilary  or  Poitiers,  testimony  of,  as  to  Apoc- 
rypha, 725. 

Hinds,  his  view  of  miracles  as  examples  of 
the  supernatural,  238;  notices  of  other 
views  of,  as  to  miracles,  236,  239. 

Hippo,  testimony  of  Council  of,  as  to  Apoc- 
rypha, 687. 

HiPPOLYTUS,  alleged  quotations  by,  of  Apoc- 
rypha as  inspired,  676. 

HoDdE,  Dr.  Charles,  discussion  of  views  of, 
as  to  the  validity  of  Romanist  baptism,  283. 

Holiness,  spiritual  account  of  the  nature  of, 
172;  not  the  ground  of  acceptance  with 
God,  361;  personal,  the  result  of  union 
with  God,  364,  368;  impossible  to  a  sinner 
under  condemnation,  367;  impossible  on 
the  scheme  of  Rome,  368. 

Holy  Spirit,  The,  the  work  of.  confounded 
by  Rationalists  with  inspiration  and  reve- 
lation, 159,  168;  the  agency  of,  necessary 
to  the  production  of  the  religious  life,  174; 
and  the  Bible  the  great  principle  of  Prot- 
estant Christianity,  180  ;  the  illumination 
of,  necessary  to  reason  in  investigating 
contents  of  supernatural  revelation,  203; 
doctrine  as  to,  undiscoverable  by  reason, 
205;  the  illumination  of,  the  sole  reason 
of  taith,  4()I  ;  witness  of,  to  the  believer 
direct  and  ininieili.ite.  407. 

HoRSLKY.  Bi.snop,  on  silence  of  Peter  as  to  an 
infallible  living  tribunal,  490  (note). 

Humboldt,  Pantheistic  doctrine  of,  as  to  uni- 
verse as  a  self-developing  organism,  267. 

Hume,  his  abuse  of  reason  in  arguing  against 
miracles,  215 ;  argument  of,  against  mira- 
cles examined,  258. 

HuRD,  his  account  of  (he  consecration  of  the 
water  of  baptism,  290. 

Hypothetical  Realists,  their  account  of  the 
mode  by  which  we  know  the  external 
world,  108. 

I. 

Idolatry  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  374,  520. 

Illumination,  supernatural,  necessary  to  the 
understanding  of  an  external  standard  of 
religion,  50;  of  the  Holy  Spirit  necessary 


INDEX. 


8U 


to  reason  in  investigating  a  supernatiirnl 
revflatioii,  203;  of  the  Holy  Spirit  tlie  sole 
reason  of  fiiitli,  401 ;  of  tlie  Holy  Spirit  uc- 
conipiinyiiig  the  Word,  W7. 
Imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  always 

denied  by  advocates  of  free-will,  380. 
IsADiUTV.  total,  of  man  in  his  natural  condi- 
tion, 381. 
Incarsatiox,  effect  of  Morell's  scheme  upon 
doctrine  of  the,  25  ;  doctrine  of  the,  uudis- 
coverabte  by  reason,  205. 
Infallibiutv  01"  THE  CHURCH  tho  fundamen- 
tal error  of  I'opery,  475;  ambiguity  of  the 
argument  for,  432;  must  be  predicated  of 
every  pastor,  434;  disproved  by  known 
character  of  the  priesthood,  437, 462 ;  argu- 
ment for,  from  the  necessity  of  the  Ciise 
exHUiined,  439;  eucunibered  with  same 
difficulties  as  private  iufallibility,  459 ;  if 
true,  cannot  bo  proved,  46(5 ;  no  safeguard 
against  error,  468;  unnecessary,  469,  476  ; 
not  contemplated  by  Christ,  470;  not  con- 
sistent with  a  state  of  probation,  476  ;  seat 
of,  never  determined,  479;  never  in  fact 
the  result  of  unanimous  consent  of  tho 
pastors  of  tho  Church,  484  ;  historically 
untrue,  487 ;  without  sanction  in  Scrip- 
ture, 491 ;  dogma  of,  productive  of  skepti- 
cism, 493;  of  licentiousness,  508;  of  super- 
stition and  will-worship,  516;  of  danger 
to  civil  government  and  free  institutions, 
540. 
Infallibiutv  of  the  Pope,  Romanist  testimo- 
nies to,  456;  Komauist  testimonies  against, 
481. 
Infallibility  OF  General  CouNCTLS  disproved, 

483,  487. 
Innocent  X.,  Pope,  condemned  doctrines  of 

Jausenins,  387. 
Inspiration,  Morell's  conception  of,  20,  41; 
made  by  Morell  synonymous  with  holi- 
ness, 41  ;  supernatural,  not  incompatible 
with  holiness,  41  ;  theory  of  verbal,  the 
only  true  theory  of,  51 ;  Morell's  argument 
against  tho  theory  of  verbal,  discussed,  51  ; 
argument  that  there  is  no  positive  evidence 
of  verbal,  discussed,  51 ;  theory  of  a  two- 
fold, arbitrary,  52;  view  of  the  apostolic 
commission  as  involving  no  other,  than 
that  which  produced  holiness,  discus3ed,53 ; 
imperfections  of  character  of  the  Apostles 
not  inconsistent  with  their  verbal,  as  teach- 
ers, 53;  argument  against  verbal,  from  dif- 
ference of  style  of  sacred  writers,  discussed, 
54;  argument  against  verbal,  from  alleged 
competency  of  sacred  writers  without  it, 
discussed,  56 ;  argument  against  a  distinct 
commission  of  sacred  writers,  discussed,  57  ; 
proof  of  the  verbal,  of  Old  Testameut  writ- 
ers, 58;  tho  verbal,  of  New  Testament 
writers,  60;  assertion  that  the  New  Ttvsta- 
ment  writei-s  did  not  claim  verbal,  refuted, 
62;  argument  that  the  Primitive  Church 
did  not  recognize  the  verbal,  of  Apostles 
and  Evaiig.li>ts,  discussed,  65;  argument 
against  tho  verbal,  ot  the  sacred  books  that 
they  were  collecteil  simply  as  mouiorials, 
discussed,  66;  argument  against  verbal, 
from  alleged  defective  morality  of  tho  Old 
Testament,  discusscil,  69 ;  argument  against 
verbal,  from  alb-grd  incousistencies  of  the 
sacred  writers,  discussed,  70;  of  the  spirit 
not  to  be  contradisting\ii»hed  from  that  of 
the  letter,  153;  is  the  committal  of  a  Di- 
vine testimony  to  messengers  who  report 
it  154;  Morell's  view  of,  as  purely  sub- 
jective, examined,  159;    Morell'e,  largely 


synonymous  with  the  work  of  tho  Holy 
Spirit,  168  ;  covers  tho  natural,  as  well  as 
the  supernatural,  contents  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, 206;  proved  by  miracles,  233;  Dr. 
Lynth's  four  methods  of  ascertiiining,  442; 
tlie  true  method  of  ascertaining,  omitted 
by  I)r.  Lynch,  444. 

Intuition  the  source  of  theology,  according 
to  Morell,  32;  furnishes,  according  to  Mo- 
rell, the  objects  which  awaken  religious 
emotions,  34;  distinction  between,  and 
presentation,  104;  contents  of,  not  the  sole 
materials  upon  which  the  understanding 
operates,  114  ;  no  special  faculty  of,  re- 
quired by  religion,  164,  166;  no  remedy  for 
opposition  to  revealed  truth,  171 ;_  not  the 
producing  cause  of  saving  faith,  171. 

lREN.«us  OF  Lyons,  testimony  of,  as  to  Apoc- 
rypha, 640. 

J. 

Jansenius,  doctrines  of  grace  held  by,  con- 
demned by  Home,  387. 

JERO.ME,  testimony  of,  as  to  decrees  of  Coun- 
cil of  Nice  concerning  the  Apocrypha,  682, 
729. 

Jewell,  Bishop,  view  of,  as  to  the  import  of 
the  sacraments,  299. 

Jesuits,  The,  the  true  representatives  of  the 
system  of  Home,  513;  detestable  principles 
of,  514  ;  doctrine  of,  as  to  the  relations  of 
the  temporal  and  the  spiritual  power,  542. 

Judgment,  when  the  appeal  from  private,  to 
the  consent  of  mankind  is  legitiuutte,  135; 
the  last  appeal  always  to  private,  136. 

JosTiFlCATio.N,  effect  of  Morell's  scheme  upon 
the  doctrine  of,  25 ;  proceeds  ultimately 
upon  a  law  which  does  not  transcend  rea- 
son, 214;  definition  of,  349;  symbolized  by 
the  Blood,  344;  inseparable  from  sanctifi- 
cation,  345;  by  grace  denied  by  Rome,  347 ; 
by  works  affirmed  by  Rome,  347  ;  by  grace 
through  faith  the  cardinal  doctrine  of 
Christianity,  347  ;  by  grace  excludes  per- 
sonal obedience  or  inherent  righteousne.ss, 
348  ;  only  two  possible  methods  of,  349 ;  only 
three  possible  suppositions  as  to  a  right- 
eousness leading  to,  349 ;  by  inherent  right- 
eousness the  theory  of  liome,  349 ;  by  grace, 
according  to  Rome,  is  justification  by 
graces,  350;  by  inherent  righteousness  is 
juslitication  by  the  deeds  of  the  law,  351; 
Rome's  theory  as  to,  subversive  of  the  Gos- 
pel, 351 ;  by  an  inherent  righteousness  pro- 
duced by  grace  disproved,  3.53;  by  graces 
not  just'itication  by  grace,  353 ;  of  the  sin- 
ner and  of  Adam  essenlially  the  same,  ac- 
cording to  Rome,  353;  theory  of  Rome  as 
to  the  meritorious  cause  of,  357  ;  theory  of 
Rome  as  to  the  formal  cause  of,  358;  ne- 
cessary in  order  to  sanctlfication,  364;  the 
design  of,  368 ;  difference  as  to,  between  a 
fallen  and  an  unfalleu  creature,  369;  by 
grace  key  to  escape  from  bondage  of 
Rome,  371;  God's  righteousness  reigns  in, 
to  the  exclusion  of  uian's  obedience,  380  ; 
gratuitous,  inconsistent  with  sovereignty 
of  the  human  will,  381. 
Justin  Mahtvb.  alleged  testimony  of,  as  to 
Apocrypha  examined,  645. 

K. 
Kames,  Lord,  effects  of  tho  ideal  presence  of, 

152. 
Kant,  his  theory  of  nature  as  subjective  ancl 

formal  uuduly  pressed  by  Morell,  118;  the 


812 


INDEX. 


synthetic  judgments  of,  what,  128 ;  his  dis- 
tinction between  the  operations  of  tlie  un- 
dtrstanding  and  of  the  reason  criticised, 
144;  Morell's  doctrine  of  tlio  understand- 
ing and  reason  compared  with  tliat  of,  145. 
Knowledge  universally  admitted  to  bt-gin  in 
experience,  80 ;  sensationalist  tlieory  as  to 
origin  of,  80;  all,  is  phenoliiciial  and  rela- 
tive, 96  ;  presentative  and  intuitive,  distin- 
guished, 104;  as  contradi>.tin;;ui>l]L-d  frum 
faith,  104;  mediate  ;iii(l  inin.r.ljate,  distin- 
guished, 105  ;  iinine(lial._  di-tiii^nished  as 
presentative  and  re|.reseiitaii\e,  105;  our, 
of  God  not  presentative  and  immediate, 
106;  our,  of  (jtod  intuitive,  106;  competen- 
cy of  the  understanding  to  enlarge  the 
boundaries  of,  114;  the  understanding  pre- 
eminently the  faculty  of,  118;  distinctions 
between  that  obtained  by  the  logical  con- 
sciousness and  that  obtained  by  the  intui- 
tiunal  consciousness  discussed,  124;  matter 
of,  what,  126 ;  different  generations  dififer 
in  the  amount  of,  not  in  the  capacity  to 
acquire,  139 ;  comparison  between,  and 
opinion,  as  to  their  ground,  187 ;  demon- 
strative, inferior  to  intuitive,  188 ;  the 
object  of,  what,  254;  the  sole  condition 
of,  what,  254;  miracles  proper  objects  of, 
254;  the  relation  of  the  veracity  of  con- 
1  to,  255. 


Lafitau,  his  history  of  the  Bull,  Unigenitus, 
quoted,  388. 

Laodicea.  testimony  of  Council  of,  to  Apoc- 
rypha examined,  738. 

La  Place,  humility  of  true  philosophy  exhib- 
ited by,  268. 

Law,  objection  to  miracles  from  rigid  su- 
premacy of,  discussed,  271. 

Law  op  God,  effects  of  the  curse  of,  365 ;  re- 
moval of  curse  of,  necessary  in  order  to 
holiness,  367 ;  mutilated  by  Home,  372, 373. 

Legalism,  what,  345  ;  of  Rome,  349-361. 

Letdkkker  quoted  as  to  condemnation  of 
Jansenius  by  Home,  388. 

Life,  scriptural  account  of  spiritual,  172,173, 
176,  365 ;  adaptation  of  the  Word  of  God 
as  an  external  condition,  to  spiritual,  as  an 
internal  state,  175;  spiritual,  not  confined 
to  a  single  power,  but  pervades  the  whole 

Locke,  view  of,  as  to  senses  of  the  term  rea- 
son, 185  ;  opinion  of,  as  to  reason  as  a  nat- 
ural revelation,  187  ;  defect  in  theory  of, 
as  to  the  sources  of  knowledge,  218. 

Love  superior  to  faith  as  to  intrinsic  excel- 
lence, but  has  no  part  in  justification,  395. 

Luther,  doctrine  of,  as  to  the  sacraments  as 
seals,  320,  324 ;  vindicated  from  charge  of 
holding  the  opus  operatum  doctrine,  325 ; 
compliment  of,  to  Erasmus,  381;  views  of, 
as  to  servitude  of  the  will,  381. 

M. 

Man  as  an  undetermined  cause,  92;  essen- 
tially a  religious  being,  253;  condition  of, 
in  innocence,  able  to  stand,  liable  to  fall, 
37S:  condition  of,  in  sin,  172,  364,  365,  401. 

Martene,  his  account  of  consecration  of  the 
water  of  baptism,  290. 

Mariolatry  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  528. 

Mass,  The,  idolatry  of,  374;  of  Pagan  origin, 
375. 

Melanctiion,  his  statement  of  Lutheran  view 
of  the  sacraments  as  excluding  the  opus 
operatum  doctrine,  326. 


Melchior  Cavds,  doctrine  of,  as  to  supernat- 
ural origin  of  faith,  402. 

Melito,  Bishop  of  Sardis,  testimony  of, 
against  the  Apocrypha,  712. 

Merit,  of  congruity,  theory  of  Rome  as  to, 
354  ;  of  condiguity,  theory  of  Runie  as  to, 
355;  doctrine  of  Home  as  to  relation  of 
Christ's,  to  justification,  357  :  of  Christ  not 
imputed,  but  infused,  according  to  Rome. 
360.  ' 

Milton  quoted  as  to  vehemence  in  rebuking 
error,  416  (note)  ;  quoted  as  to  freedom  of 
the  Press,  507. 

Mill,  J.  S.,  his  view  that  belief  in  God's  ex- 
istence is  essential  to  the  credibility  of 
miracles,  229 ;  his  view  of  miracles  as  not 
contradicting  the  law  of  causation,  257. 

Mind,  The,  faculties  of,  in  all  men,  same  as  to 
essence,  different  as  to  degree,  73;  suscep- 
tible of  growth,  73;  susceptible  of  super- 
natural improvement,  74 ;  all  the  parts  of, 
susceptible  of  Divine  influence,  74;  Mo- 
rell's view  of  the  essence  of,  examined,  86; 
Morell's  classification  of  the  powers  of,  99; 
receptive  and  elaborative  faculties  of,  dis- 
tinguished, 104. 

Miracles,  importance  of  question  as  to,  221 ; 
position  of  English  Deists  as  to,  221;  posi- 
tion of  German  Rationalists  as  to,  222;  na- 
ture of, 'Z28  ;  genus  of,  228;  specific  differ- 
ence of,  230;  apologetic  worth  of,  233;  in 
themselves  sufiicient  credentials  of  Divine 
inspiration,  "233;  relation  of,  to  doctrine, 
234;  impossible  to  created  beings,  234; 
power  to  work,  creative  and  intransferable, 
235;  Prophets  and  Apostles  as  to,  only 
prophets  of  the  Divine  power,  236;  precise 
relation  between,  and  inspiration,  237; 
themselves  examples  of  the  supernatural, 
238;  themselves  specimens  of  inspiration, 
238  ;  involve  God's  endorsement  of  claims 
of  messenger  announcing  working  of,  240; 
testimonial  connection  of,  with  inspiration 
confirmed  by  Christ,  241 ;  criteria  for  dis- 
tinguishing real,  from  pretended,  244; 
goodness  of  God  not  a  guarantee  against  pre- 
tended, 244 ;  goodness  of  ductrine  not  alone 
a  criterion  of,  245;  the  only  sure  criterion 
of,  247;  place  of.  the  front  rank  of  Chris- 
tian evidences,  '248;  faith  in,  distinguished 
from  saving  faith  in  Christ,  248;  ethical 
value  of,  249 ;  principal  office  of,  249 ;  ef- 
fect of  depreciation  of,  "250;  credilnlity  o(, 
251;  direct  communication  of  God  with 
man  supposed  by,  credible,  252 ;  phenome- 
na of,  cognizable  by  the  human  faculties, 
254;  intrinsic  improbability  of,  no  disproof 
of  possibility  of  knowledge  of,  255 ;  con- 
sciousness atfirmiug  the  uniformity  of  na- 
ture no  disproof  of,  256 ;  phenomena  of,  as 
effects,  demand  adequate  causes,  25S ;  trans- 
missibility  of  proofs  of,  b.v  testimony,  258; 
Hume's  argument  against,  discussed,  258; 
intrinsic  and  extrinsic  probability  not  in 
conflict  as  to,  260;  skepticism  as  to,  contra- 
dictory to  genius  of  the  inductive  philoe- 
ophy.  261 ;  possibility  of,  263 ;  question  of 
possibility  of,  the  question  of  a  personal 
God,  263;  position  of  the  Atheist  as  to,  264; 
position  of  the  Pantheist  as  to,  264;  objec- 
tion to,  from  the  reign  of  order  and  law, 
271 ;  ethical  relations  of,  the  true  point  of 
view,  273;  effect  as  to,  of  researches  of 
modern  science,  275. 

Mohammedanism,  description  of,  in  contnwt 
with  Christianity,  184;  comparison  of. 
with  Romanism,  418. 


INDEX. 


813 


Morality,  the,  of  revelation  not  supernatural, 

MoRELL,  J.  D.,  philosopliy  of  religion  of,  re- 
viewed, 9  ;  falsely  employs  phraseology  of 
evangelical  religion,  14;  style  of,  applaud- 
ed, 15;  his  fU'tiiiition  of  religiun,  1";  his 
distinLtiiiii  lii'twofu  riligiim  ami  theology, 

ligioii,  18  ;  ruinous  teu<leuties  of  theory  of, 
1^  ;  iiiial.Vfis  of  liis  philosophy  of  religion, 
19,  22,  j;!,  2s ;  his  views  as  to  revelation 
nuil  in>pl'.Miiun,  2(1,  34,  35.  37,  41,  51;  his 
diiiJMl  .1  ;iiL  riuihoritativo  standard  of  re- 
li-i  !  -i  -■  7  ,  scheme  of,  a  subtle  form 
<■!    i       I  .  '■:    his   mode  of  attack  on 

rill      1  N|Mied  with  that  of  earlier 

iiilii  1-  -I:  II.  .  t  <if  his  theory  upon  his 
theology,  2'i ;  Ids  fundamental  position  the 
huuiau  origin  of  theology,  2S;  his  argu- 
ment against  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures,  discussed,  61 ;  his  argument 
against  an  authoritative  the(dogy  from  its 
alli'giil  incompatibility  with  our  logical 
processes,  71;  his  theory  of  the  will,  88; 
his  doctrine  of  the  understanding,  102; 
confounds  presentative  and  intuitive  know- 
ledge, 104  ;  confounds  mediate  and  imme- 
diate knowledge,  105 ;  his  doctrine  of  the 
logical  consciousness  discussed,  110 ;  his 
view  of  conception  as  unable  exactly  to 
represent  our  intuitions,  criticiseil,  111;  his 
position  that  the  understanding  cannot 
enlarge  the  boundaries  of  knowledge  dis- 
cussed, 114:  unduly  presses  Kant's  theory 
of  nature  as  subjectiv«  and  formal,  118: 
his  distinction  between  the  logical  and  the 
intuitional  consciousness,  discussed,  123; 
his  distinctions  between  knowledge  fur- 
nished by  the  logical  consciousness  and 
that  furnished  by  the  intuitional  conscious- 
ness, discussed,  134;  his  tincture  of  Realism 
noticed,  131 ;  his  account  of  the  connection 
between  the  logical  and  the  intuitional 
consciousness,  discussed,  141 ;  his  distinc- 
tion between  the  logical  and  therintuitional 
consciousness,  a  departure  from  the  current 
of  philosophy,  144;  his  intuition  compared 
with  the  common  sense  of  the  Scottish 
school,  143 ;  his  doctrine  of  the  understand- 
ing and  intuition  compared  with  Kant's, 
145 ;  his  psychology  considered  in  its  ap- 
plication to  religion,  146;  the  disastrous 
results  of  his  philosophy,  149  ;  his  theory 
of  revelation  as  a  mode  of  intelligence,  dis- 
cussed, 166;  his  position  that  revelation  is 
a  species  of  intuition,  discussed,  168;  his 
doctrine  of  inspiration  as  purely  subjective, 
discnssi-d,  169;  his  error  as  to  the  nature 
of  religious  truth,  162;  his  error  as  to  the 
design  of  revelation,  171. 
MosHtlM,  view  of,  as  to  false  miracles,  245. 


Naturw.  Realist,  doctrine  of  the,  as  to  per- 
ception, 143. 

Natikal  Keligiov,  distinction  between,  and 
superinitnral  religion,  210. 

Nati-Rk,  the  scheme  of,  proclaims  its  Divine 
origin,  400. 

Newtox,  Sir  I8a\c,  mo<leety  of  true  philoso- 
phy displayed  by,  268. 

Nirr.,  testimony  of  Council  of,  as  to  the  Apoc- 
rypha, 677. 

NiiiiLisM,  the  logical  result  of  the  philosophy 
of  the  Absolute,  150. 

NiT7,scu,  his  view  of  miracles  as  accordant 
with  natural  laws,  271. 


0. 

Oaths,  exemption  of  priests  from,  by  Rome, 
549;  violation  of,  by  priests,  justified  by 
Rome,  651. 

Obstaclks  to  receiving  sacraments,  doctrine 

OuLiOATiov,  iliitinetion  between  moral  and 
I>osilivi',  211  ;  the  sphere  of  moral,  enlarged 
by  the  Christian  revelation,  211. 

O.ntoloov,  a  complete  science  of,  the  aim  of 
the  Rationalistic  school,  83. 

Opinion,  distinction  between,  and  knowledge, 
1.S7  ;  distinction  between,  and  faith,  401. 

Origen,  testimony  of,  against  the  Apocrypha, 
719. 

OwKN,  John,  opinion  of,  as  to  the  sacraments 
of  Rome,  304. 


Pallavicino,  his  history  of  Council  of  Trent 
quoted,  425. 

Palev,  remiu'k  of,  as  to  the  making  of  max- 
ims, 214. 

Pantheism,  fundamental  error  of,  265 ;  por- 
traiture and  rebuke  of,  264-270. 

Paruo.n  necessary  in  order  to  repentance, 
364;  condition  of  the  sinner  without,  366. 

Paulinus  of  Nola,  alleged  testimony  of,  for 
the  Apocrypha,  710. 

Paulus,  infidel  theory  of  school  of,  223. 

Pelagianism  compared  with  Romanism,  379. 

Pebrot,  remark  of,  as  to  folly  of  preferring 
philosophy  to  revelation,  188. 

Perseverance  of  Saints,  final,  inseparable 
from  etfoctual  grace  and  free  justification, 
382. 

Perception,  Morell's  and  Hamilton's  views 
as  to  external,  compared,  115;  ofiSce  of, 
121. 

Peter,  dissimulation  of  the  Apostle,  no  proof 
against  verbal  inspiration,  63. 

Philo,  fine  piussage  from,  as  to  the  teachings 
of  nature,  264. 

Philosophers,  modesty  of  English,  contrast- 
ed with  boldness  of  German  and  French, 
11;  difference  between  Scotch,  and  Ger- 
man, 86;  tribute  to  the  German,  as  think- 
ers, 98;   the  great  defect  of  the  German, 

Philosopht,  contradictions  of  the  Transcen- 
dental, 27  ;  the  Rationalistic,  limits  God's 
power, -75 ;  of  the  Absolute,  disastrous,  148  ; 
comparison  between  the  Riitionalistic,  and 
the  Gospel,  178  ;  the  Rationalistic,  charge- 
able with  deception  in  using  evangelical 
phraseology,  179;  disastrous  results  of  the 
Rationalistic,  18il;  extravagance  of  tbo 
modern  Rationalistic,  218. 

Pictet,  opinion  of,  as  to  the  sacraments  of 
Rome,  304. 

Pus  IV.,  Pope,  the  symbol  of,  the  true  faith 
of  Rome,  332,  333,  340. 

Pius  v..  Pope,  liull  of,  condemning  the  doc- 
trines of  grace  helil  by  Uaius,  386. 

Polycarp,  alleged  testimony  of,  foi  the  Apoc- 
rypha. 623. 

Pope,  The,  infallibility  of,  456;  supremacy 
of,  .542;  councils  sustaining  the  supremacy 
of,  547. 

Pope.-!,  the  usurpation  of,  653. 

PoPi.RY  aiiti-ehristian  and  dangerous  4in. 

Pre-SENTation,  diiitinction  between,  and  into- 
ition,  104  ;  distinction  between,  and  repre- 
sentation, 106,  111 ;  office  of,  123. 

Press,  The,  freedom  of,  opposed  by  Church 
of  Rome,  506. 


814 


INDEX. 


Priesthood,  The,  of  Rome  notoriously  im- 
moral, 438. 

Private  Judgment,  the  right  of,  an  indispen- 
sable safeguard  against  skepticism,  493. 

Probation,  two  essential  elements  of  a  state 
of,  378  ;  Komanist  doctrine  of,  as  secured 
for  sinners  by  Christ's  merits,  359,  379. 

Protestantism,  the  Spirit  and  the  Bible  the 
great  principle  of,  180. 

Providence,  doctrine  of  an  universal,  as  the 
only  seat  of  real  power.  94. 

Psychology,  Morell's,  examined,  79. 

Pyrrhonism,  comparison  of,  with  Romanism, 
502. 

Q. 

QUESNEL,  doctrine  of,  as  to  grace,  380;  doc- 
trines of  grace  held  by,  condemned  by 
Rome,  388. 

Quick,  his  Synodicon  quoted,  334. 


Rainoidus  quoted  at  length  as  to  the  Apoc- 
rypha, 672,  685,  690. 

Rationalism,  philosophic  school  of,  described, 
83  ;  aims  at  a  complete  science  of  ontology, 
83 ;  difference  between  school  of,  and  that 
of  experience,  86 ;  in  rejecting  the  letter  of 
Scripture  rejects  the  government  of  law, 
167  ;  comparison  between,  and  the  Gospel, 
180;  disastrous  results  of,  148,  180;  por- 
traiture and  ridicule  of,  218 ;  historical 
sketch  of,  221;  position  of  German,  222; 
of  Eichhorn  and  I'aulus,  223;  of  Schleier- 
macher,  224,  250 ;  of  Strauss,  224. 

Reason,  Cousin's  theory  of  the  impersonality 
of,  criticised,  87  ;  place  of,  in  a  classifica- 
tion of  the  mental  powers,  103 ;  unity  of, 
as  intuitive  and  as  deductive,  103 ;  office 
of,  in  regard  to  Revelation,  183  ;  language 
of  some  divines  as  to  office  of,  in  regard  to 
revelation,  unguarded,  184;  not  absolutely 
interdicted  by  revelation,  1^5 ;  definition 
of  term,  when  used  as  to  its  crticr  in  rr-iud 
to  revelation,  184  :  office  ol.  ,i-  in  .i  l;i.own 
revelation,  186;  office  of,  ;i>  t..  ii  (iroirsM/d 
revelation,  189;  difficulty  of  the  .jnestiou 
as  to  office  of,  in  regard  to  revelation  due 
to  the  Fall,  189;  rc-lation  of.  to  internal 
proofs  of  religious  systems,  190;  argument 
from  abuse  of,  always  suspicious,  194  ;  the 
competency  of,  the  measure  of  its  right  to 
judge  of  a  professed  revelation,  19.i,  198 ; 
distinction  between  office  of,  iis  to  the  nat- 
ural and  as  to  the  supernatural  contents 
of  revelation,  196;  illumination  of  grace 
necessary  to,  in  investigating  supernatural 
contents  of  revelation,  197,  203  ;  office  of, 
as  to  the  supernatural  not  to  judge  but  to 
apprehend,  199,  200;  doctrine  of  want  of 
negative  jurisdiction  of,  as  to  the  supernat- 
ural, subversive  of  philosophical  infidelity, 
201 ;  distinction  between  what  is  above, 
and  what  is  contrary  to,  202;  incapacity 
of,  to  perceive  impressions  of  Deity  no  pre- 
sumption against  their  existence,' 203;  ca- 
pacity of,  from  negative  considerations  to 
infer  the  Divine  origin  of  supernatural  rev- 
elation, 204 ;  office  of,  as  to  natural  con- 
tents of  revelation  negative,  not  positive, 
206 ;  office  of,  as  to  moral  contents  of  reve- 
lation negative,  207;  distinction  between 
office  of,  in  man  as  unfallen  and  as  fallen, 
207  ;  competency  of,  to  recognize  the  duties 
growing  out  of  moral  relations  supernatu- 
rally  revealed,  212;  use  and  abuse  of,  iu 


Redemption,  scheme  of,  authenticates  ito 
own  Divine  origin,  20.3,  400;  why  called 
reasrmahU,  203  ;  inipossiliility  of  any  other 
origin  of,  than  the  Divine  mind,  205;  the 
great  end  of,  210;  creates  new  moral  rela- 
tions and  duties,  211;  facts  of,  the  peculiar 
glory  of  the  Gospel.  209;  the  most  glorious 
product  of  the  Divine  perfections,  400; 
man  blind  to,  in  his  natural  state.  401 ;  is 
a  spiritual  mystery,  401. 

Regeneration,  effect  of  Morell's  scheme  upon 
doctrine  of,  26;  act  of,  as  affecting  the  hu- 
man faculties,  75;  Baptismal,  Romanist 
and  Lutheran  views  as  to,  327 ;  God  sove- 
reign and  man  passive  in,  380,  381 ;  a  new 
creation,  385. 

Reflection  omitted  by  Morell  in  his  classifi- 
cation of  the  mental  powers,  100;  office  of. 

va. 

Reim.\r,  method  of,  in  Wolfenbiittel  Frag- 
ments, 222. 

Relics,  worship  of,  by  Church  of  Rome,  530. 

Religio.v,  standard  and  nature  of,  9 ;  external 
standard  of,  vindicated,  9  ;  phraseology  of 
evangelical,  falsely  and  dangerously  em- 
ployed by  Rationalists,  13.  15;  Jlorell's  dis- 
tinction between,  and  theolog.v,  17 ;  Mo- 
rell's conception  of,  17  ;  Morell's  definition 
of  philosophy  of,  18;  an  authoritjitive 
standard  of,  denied  by  Morell,  21 ;  results 
of  abandonment  of  an  external  standard 
of,  26;  emotions  of,  awakened,  according 
to  Morell,  by  objects  furnished  by  intui- 
tion, 34;  argument  against  the  possibility 
of  an  external  standard  of.  discussed,  37 ; 
argument  against  the  usefulness  of  an  ex- 
ternal standard  of,  discussed,  42;  position 
that  no  external  standard  of,  has,  in  fact, 
been  given,  discussed,  45 ;  supernatural  il- 
lumination necessary  to  the  understanding 
of  an  external  stanilard  of,  50;  arguments 
against  verbal  inspiration  as  the  source  of 
an  external  standiird  of,  discussed,  61 ;  ar- 
gument against  an  external  standard  of, 
from  its  alleged  incompatibility  with  our 
logical  processes,  discussed,  71 ;  psycho- 
logically considered,  79;  faith  the  essence 
of  a  sinner's,  153, 171, 173,  178 ;  Haul's  phil- 
osophy of,  155;  opposition  to  an  authorita- 
tive standard  of,  prompted  by  hatred  of  the 
Cross,  155;  Morell's  theory  as  to  the  nature 
of,  discussed,  162;  not  a  collection  of  simple 
ideas,  163 ;  requires  no  separate  faculty  spe- 
cifically adapted  to  it,  164,  166;  grows  out 
of  relations  involved  in  moral  government, 
164 ;  the  true  nature  and  essence  of,  164. 
177 ;  the  objective  elements  of,  embraced 
in  a  history  of  the  Divine  administration, 
165  ;  what  is  implied  in,  subjectively  con- 
sidered, 165;  a  sinner's,  only  possible  in 
consequence  of  God's  testimony  as  to  the 
doctrines  and  facts  of  Christianity,  166; 
revelation  not  a  subjective  faculty  of,  but 
an  objective  means  in  order  to.  171;  the 
life  of,  in  the  soul  produced  only  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  174;  the  life  of,  not  confined 
to  a  single  power,  but  pervades  the  whole 
man,  176  ;  the  essence  of,  subjectively  con- 
sidered, 177  ;  the  nature  of  Christianity  aa 
a  particular  scheme  of,  178. 

Remonstrants,  The,  comparison  of  creed  o^ 
with  that  of  Rome,  391. 

Repentance  presupposes  pardon,  364;  impos- 
sible to  a  sinner  under  condemnation,  367; 
impossible  on  the  scheme  of  Rome,  36S. 


INDEX. 


815 


Rkprerentatiok.  flistinction  between,  and 
lireseiitatioii,  106,  111. 

Representation,  Federal,  competency  of 
ruasou  to  pronounce  ita  to.  as  a  funilauieu- 
tal  principle  of  religion,  "214. 

Revehtion,  Morell'8  detinitiiin  of,  20;  Mo- 
rell's  theory  of,  as  made  to  the  intuitional 
faculty,  32;  uot  addressed  to  the  logical 
understanding,  according  to  Morel),  34; 
imparts,  according  to  Morell,  the  original 
elements  of  knowledge — simple  ideas,  35; 
Morell'g  view  of,  stated,  37  ;  is  the  report 
of  a  Divine  testimony  by  inspired  messen- 
gers, l.i4;  relation  of,  to  inspiration  and  to 
faith,  154;  Rationalistic  theory  of,  as  a 
mode  of  intelligence,  discussed,  150;  the 
contents  of,  strictly  speaking,  are  super- 
natural, 156;  office  of,  objective,  not  sub- 
jective, 157;  is  a  Divine  testimony,  15S; 
not  a  species  of  intuition,  158;  Morell's 
theory  of,  as  involving  error  as  to  the  na- 
ture of  religious  truth,  16J;  as  an  objective 
Divine  testimony,  the  only  source  of  know- 
ledi;i'  as  to  distinctive  doctrines  and  facts 
of  Christianity,  Ititi:  the  giving  of  a,  and 
the  process  of  making  a  Christian  con- 
founded by  Rationalists,  168;  the  design 
of,  misconceived  by  Ratiimalists,  171  ;  not 
a  subjective  faculty  of,  but  an  objective 
means  in  order  to,  religion,  171;  the  be- 
lieving nci-ption  of.  due  to  the  subjective 
agency  of  the  Jloly  Spirit,  174;  supplies 
tlie  external  conilition  adapted  to  the  spir- 
itual life  as  an  internal  state,  175;  picture 
of  a  converted  soul  supposed  to  bo  desti- 
tute of,  175;  office  of  Reason  in  regard  to, 
183;  a  known,  to  be  implicitly  received  by 
reason,  186 ;  a  disputed,  office  of  reason  as 
to,  189;  doctrine  as  the  test  of  a  pretended. 
192  ;  distinction  between,  as  supernatural 
and  as  natural,  196;  costume  of,  distin- 
guished from  substance  of,  197  ;  every  true, 
self-authenticating.  198;  Divine  illumina- 
tion necessary  to  the  understanding  of  the 
supernatural  contents  of,  198;  as  supernat- 
ural, a  source  of  new  ideas,  199;  no  natu- 
ral meiisures  of  supernatural  mysteries  of, 
199;  uniy  be  above,  is  never  ct)ntrary  to, 
reason,  202;  incapacity  to  receive  impres- 
sions of  Deity  in.  no  presumption  against 
their  existence,  203;  ignorance  of  myste- 
ries of.  no  ground  of  argument  against,  204 ; 
contents  of,  as  furnishing  negative  proof 
of  its  supernatural  origin.  2(>4;  natural 
contents  of,  furnish  no  positive  evidence 
of  its  supernatural  origin,  2U6:  moral  con- 
tents of,  furnish  only  a  presumptive  jiroof 
of  its  supernatural  origin,  207 ;  the  nmrals 
of.  receive  new  sanctions  from  supernatu- 
ral facts  of,  209  ;  mysteries  of,  chief  source 
of  internal  evidences  of,  209;  equally  the 
ground  ot  natural  religion  ami  the  Gospel, 
210;  consistency  of,  with  true  science  and 
philow.phy,  219. 

BlOHTEOUSNESS,  distinction  between  infu.sed 
and  imputed.  344;  only  three  suppositions 
as  to  a  justifying,  349;  receives  its  di'noni- 
inatinn  not  from  its  source,  but  its  end. 
353;  the  sinner's,  placed  by  Koine  on  same 
foot  with  Adam's,  f.h?,;  inherent,  accord- 
ing to  Rome,  is  infusion  of  grace,  362;  im- 
putation of  Christ's,  condemned  by  Rome, 
360,  301. 

KosiE,ClilRcri  OF.  internal  eviilence  of  system 
of,  as  rebutting  her  appeals  to  miracles, 
191;  validity  of  the  baptism  of,  discussed, 
283;  doctrine  of,  as  to  the  sacraments,  301- 


3'-'S,  408-412;  Christian  only  in  nominal 
sense,  JUO;  creed  of,  coutaiued  in  the  de- 
crees of  Trent  and  the  symbol  of  Pius  IV., 
332,  333,  340;  arguments  to  show  that 
creed  of,  is  saving,  discussed,  338;  creed 
of,  does  not,  as  a  system,  present  saving 
truth,  343;  denies  justification  by  the 
blood  of  Christ,  347  ;  corrupts  the  doctrine 
of  eanctification,  361 ;  efl'ects  of  system  of, 
on  different  minds,  370;  doctrine  of,  as  to 
venial  sins,  372 ;  annuls  the  second  com- 
mandment, 373;  idolatry  of,  374.  520;  will- 
worship  of,  377  ;  denies  spiritual,  experi- 
mental religion,  377  ;  creed  of,  compared 
with  I'elagianism,  379 ;  creed  of,  compared 
with  that  of  the  Remonstrants,  3ill  ;  de- 
nies the  efficacy  of  grace,  3S2;  doctrine  of, 
as  to  the  liberty  of  the  will,  382;  boasted 
unity  of,  rent  by  controversies,  386;  nn- 
Bt)nndness  of,  as  to  the  office  of  faith,  395; 
unsoundness  of,  as  to  the  nature  of  faith, 
399;  unsoundness  of,  as  to  the  ground  of 
faith.  403  ;  doctrine  of,  as  to  the  seal  of  in- 
fallibility, 405;  system  of,  compared  with 
Mohammedanism,  418;  arguments  of,  for 
the  Apocrypha,  discussed,  430;  claim  of,  to 
infallibility,  discussed,  439;  treachery  of, 
462;  cruelty  of,  474;  a  parent  of  skepti- 
cism, 493  ;  an  enemy  of  free  thought,  505  ; 
an  enemy  of  a  free  Press,  506  ;  a  patron  of 
iniinoralit,v,  508;  wealth  and  power  watch- 
words of,  511 ;  doctrine  of,  as  to  expedien- 
cy, 512 ;  the  Jesuits  true  exponents  of,  513  ; 
system  of,  a  Christianized  Paganism,  520; 
grossness  of  superstitions  of,  535;  system 
of,  dangerous  to  civil  government  and  free 
institutions,  540. 
RuFFi.NLS,  testimony  of,  against  the  Apocry- 
pha, 737. 


Sacraments,  The,  validity  of,  284 ;  intention 
of,  285;  matter  and  form  of, '285, '297  ;  in- 
strumental cause  of,  2s6 ;  nature  of  rela- 
ti(mship  involved  in,  as  signs  and  seals, 
299;  analogy  of,  "299;  are  visible  promises, 
301 ;  opus  operatum  view  of  Rome  as  to, 
303  ;  Romanist  theory  of,  mechaiiiiHl,  306  ; 
Romanist  theory  of,  as  necessarily  involv- 
ing moral  power,'3u8;  Romanist  theory 
of,  as  physical  causes,  310;  I'rot'eslant 
doctrine  as  to  efficiency  of,  315,  322;  ofjus 
operatum  view  not  that  of  the  English 
and  lAitheran  Churches,  3'23;  rule  as  to 
administration  of,  by  an  unworthy  minis- 
ter, 327  ;  relationship  of,  to  the  truths  of 
the  covenant  of  grace,  328;  Protestant 
view  of,  as  badges  of  the  Christian  profes- 
sion, 329;  Romanist  doctrine  of,  as  dis- 
charging the  office  ascribed  by  Scriptures 
to  the  Spirit  and  to  faith,  40S. 

Saddlckes,  The,  the  princiide  of.  opposition 
to  the  supernatural,  253;  rejection  of  Old 
Testament  canon  by,  cannot  be  proved, 
593. 

Saints,  worship  of,  by  Church  of  Rome,  530. 

SaNCTIFICAtion  symbolized  by  the  water,  344; 
inseparable  from  justilicalion.  .'Uo.  ,367; 
presupi>oses  justification,  36.'i:  impossible 
on  scheme  of  Koine,  ;;68 ;  dinin-nce  as  to, 
between  a  fallen  and  an  uufalleu  creature, 
369. 

Scfileiermaciif.r,  Rationalist  theory  of,  223, 
'226;  danger  from  Ratioiialism  of,  250.      * 

SoiiooLMKN,  The.  skepticism  of,  498. 

ScRil'TlRES,  The,  the  verbal  inspiration  of, 
51 :  the  standard  and  measure  of  faith,  154 ; 


816 


INDEX. 


not  precisely  coincident  with  revelatitm, 
156;  rejection  of  authority  of  tlie  letter  of, 
tends  to  rejection  of  authority  of  moral 
law,  167  ;  adaptation  of,  as  an  external  con- 
dition to  the  spiritual  life  as  an  internal 
state,  175  ;  picture  of  a  converted  soul  sup- 
posed to  be  destitute  of,  176;  ruinous  re- 
sults of  giving  up  the  supremacy  of,  181 ; 
consistency  of,  with  true  science  and  phil- 
osophy, 219;  objections  to  the  reading  of, 
by  all,  met,  196;  Divine  illumination  ne- 
cessary to  the  understanding  of,  197  ;  igno- 
rance of  the  mysteries  of,  no  ground  of 
argument  against,  2(H\  position  of  the 
English  Deists  as  to,  221 ;  position  of  the 
German  Rationalists  as  to,  222,  226;  are 
an  external,  authoritative  revelation  from 
God,  226;  the  miracles  of,  not  doubtful, 
but  above  suspicion,  247  ;  autopistie,  445  ; 
independent  of  an  infallible  Church,  469; 
the  only  rule  of  faith,  488  ;  acknowledged 
as  the  only  rule  of  faith  by  the  Fathers, 
488 ;  in  harmony  with  our  intuitive  prin- 
ciples, 499  ;  the  Old  Testament,  quoted  and 
appealed  to  as  inspired,  by  Christ  aud  the 
Apostles,  689. 

Scripture,  patristic  use  of  the  term  to  desig- 
nate uninspired  wiilings,  629. 

Self-consciousness  omitted  by  Morell  in  his 
classification  of  the  mental  powers,  100. 

Sensation.^lism,  delinition  of,  80;  defects  of, 
80. 

Septuagint  Version  not  necessarily  composed 
of  inspired  books  only,  697. 

Sin,  voluntary  action  not  the  only  form  of, 
215  ;  effect  of  the  first,  365 ;  distinction  be- 
tween the  effects  of  the  first,  and  a  course 
of,  366 ;  venial,  doctrine  of  Rome  as  to,  372. 

Skepticism  result  of  abandonment  of  the 
right  of  private  judgment,  493;  dogma  of 
iiitiiUibility  conducive  to,  495;  vice  the 
oft'sjiriug  of,  508. 

SociMANiSM,  doctrine  of,  as  to  repentance  as 
a  ground  of  pardon,  361 ;  compared  with 
Romanism  as  to  justification,  361. 

Sp.vce  a  native  notion  of  the  mind,  120. 

Spinoza,  doctrine  of,  as  to  substance,  91,  264 ; 
philosophy  of,  unavoidable  if  creation  be 
denied,  265. 

Spontaneity,  Morell's  theory  of,  as  consti- 
tuting the  essence  of  mind,  88. 

Stapleton,  doctrine  of,  as  to  the  supernatural 
origin  of  faith,  402:  doctrine  of,  as  to  the 
necessity  of  the  testimony  of  the  Church  to 
faith,  403. 

Strauss,  his  account  of  Woolston's  method, 
222;  account  of  the  theory  of,  224;  Canon 
of,  for  distinguishing  between  the  histori- 
cal and  the  fabulous,  263  ;  Pantheistic  doc- 
triiie  of,  as  to  the  uniou  of  God  and  the 
world,  267. 

Strtpe,  statement  of,  as  to  John  Clement's 
confession,  334. 

Substance,  Morell's  view  of  spontaneous  ac- 
tivity as  the  criterion  for  distinguishing, 
from  attributes,  91  ;  how  alone  cognizable 
by  us,  97 ;  of  tin-  s..ul  c-ininut  be  known, 
95;  distinction  In  tu. m.  ■.lihI  ijjlcient  cause 
confounded  by  i;  iih  nili-t-.  M,  147;  doc- 
trine of  SpinozM  as  ti>,  'Jl,  2(14  ;  doctrine  of 
Cousin  as  to,  265. 

Supernatural,  The.  what,  202;  office  of  rea- 
son as  to,  197.  199 ;  the  stumbling-stone  of 
*  infidelity,  221. 

Supekstition,  nature  of,  518;  causes  of,  519; 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  520. 

SlMHESis  as  related  to  analysis,  127. 


Tatlof,  Jeremv,  valuable  hints  in  his  Dnctor 
Dubitantiuni  as  to  oifice  of  reason  in  r<-pard 
to  revelation.  196;  estimate  of  hia  Dnctor 
Dubitantiuni,  196;  quoted  »g  to  Komicb  su- 
perstitions, 536. 

Tertl'LLIan,  testimony  of,  as  to  the  Apocrv 
pha,  661. 

Testimont,  possibility  the  sole  natural  limit 
to  belief  in  competent,  254;  transmissibil- 
ity  of  proof  of  miracles  through  human, 
258;  canons  as  to  credibility  of,  258;  fmi- 
damcntal  condition  of,  259  :  credibility  of, 
not  affected  by  intrinsic  iiiiprobability  uf 
phenomena,  260;  criteria  of  sinceriiy  uf, 
attainable,  260;  in  case  of,  as  to  nuracles, 
the  intrinsic  and  extrinsic  probabilities  not 
directed  to  same  point,  261. 

Theist,  The,  doctrine  of,  as  to  cause,  93. 

Theologv  discriminated  from  religion  by  Mo- 
rell, 17  ;  the  human  origin  of,  Morell's  fun- 
damental position,  28  ;  an  external,  author- 
itative, not  precluded  by  a  revelation  if 
made  to  the  intuitional  faculty,  32 ;  Ra- 
tionalist theory  of  the  impossibility  of  a 
Divine,  discussed,  37  ;  God  as  competent  as 
man  to  construct  and  communicate  an  au- 
thoritative, 38  ;  Rationalist  theory  of  the 
usefulness  of  an  authoritative,  discussed, 
42 ;  Morell's  uses  of  a  human,  applicable  in 
greater  degree  to  a  Divine,  43 ;  theory  that 
in  fact  no  Divine,  external  standard  of,  has 
been  given,  discussed,  45 ;  a  logical  state- 
ment of  an  external  standard  of,  necessa- 
rily implied  in  the  teaching  of  Christ  and 
the  Apostles,  47;  supernatural  illninina- 
tion  necessary  to  the  understanding  of  an 
external  standard  of,  50 ;  arguments  against 
verbal  inspiration  as  the  source  of  an  ex- 
ternal standard  of,  discussetl,  61 ;  argument 
against  an  authoritative,  from  its  alleged 
incompatibility  with  our  logical  processes, 
discussed,  71 ;  according  to  Morell,  is  con- 
structed from  materials  subjectively  given 
in  experience,  163;  interpretation  is  to, 
what  observation  and  experiment  are  to 
philosophy,  200. 

Tholuck,  suggestion  of,  to  Morell,  9. 

Thought,  freedom  of,  11 ;  office  of  the  laws  of, 
119,  122, 134 ;  Cousin's  reduction  of  laws  of, 
147  ;  different  generations  differ  not  in  ca- 
pacity of,  but  in  amount  of  knowledge, 
139. 

Time  a  native  notion  of  the  mind,  I'JO. 

Transubstantiation  contradicts  the  senses, 
496;  nusettles  belief,  497  ;  lands  in  skepti- 
cism, 497 ;  makes  revelation  impossible, 
499;  Involves  the  basest  idolatry,  376;  Pa- 
gan origin  of,  520. 

Trent,  Council  of,  deliverances  of,  as  to  use 
of  chrism  in  baptism,  2S8,  293;  as  to  cere- 
monies in  baptism,  288;  <is  to  the  inherent 
efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  306,  310,  311, 
312,317,409;  as  to  the  profession  of  Ro- 
manism made  in  baptism,  332 :  as  to  justi- 
fication, 349,  350,  362,  365,  367,  393,  atS; 
as  to  free  will,  man's  ability  and  God's 
grace,  382,  384,  3S6,  386,  399 ;  as  to  faith, 
398,  401,  407;  as  to  assurance,  407;  as  to 
the  Apocrypha,  423  (note);  design  of  de- 
cree of,  as  to  the  Apocrypha,  425;  is"o- 
rance  of  the  members  of,  428. 

Trench,  opinion  of,  as  to  failure  of  theory  of 
Eichhorn  and  Paulus,  224 ;  caustic  criticism 
of  theory  of  Strauss,  226;  theory  of,  as  to 
miracles,  criticised,  229,  271;  his  denial  of 
sufficiency  of  miracles  as  credentials  of  in- 


INDEX. 


817 


spiration,  criticised,  233,  248;  remark  of, 
as  to  the  check  of  one  law  by  anotlier,  256. 

Trimity,  The,  doctriue  of,  implies  a  revela- 
tion from  God,  205,  210;  the  object  of  wor- 
ship alike  of  natural  religion  and  the  Gos- 
pel, 210  (note) ;  the  Creator  of  man,  210 
(note);  no  other  God  than.  210  (n<ite). 

Truth,  revealed,  how  distinguished  from 
every  other  species  of,  157;  the  ultimate 
basis  of,  157, 187  :  as  discovered  by  our  fac- 
ulties, distinguished  from  Divine  revelation, 
157  ;  Morell's  error  as  to  nature  of  religious, 
162. 

TURRETTIN,  F.,  opinion  of,  as  to  the  sacra- 
ments of  Home,  303. 


I'NDERSTANDINO,  The,  not  the  faculty,  accord- 
ing to  Morell.  to  which  revelation  is  ad- 
dressed, 34;  Morell's  doctrine  of,  discussed, 
102;  Morell's  view  of,  as  incompetent  to 
enlarge  the  boundaries  of  knowledge,  dis- 
cussed, 114;  Morell's  restriction  of  office 
of,  to  the  contents  of  intuition,  discussed, 
116;  pre-eminently  the  faculty  of  know- 
ledge, 118;  office  of  the  laws  or  categories 
of.  119,122;  representative  power  of,  122 : 
ultimately  conversant  about  things,  not 
forms,  123;  conceives  real  existences  dif- 
ferent from  those  given  in  intuition,  123 ; 
discharges  the  functions  both  of  analysis 
and  synthesis,  127  ;  Kant's  synthetic  judg- 
ments belong  to,  not  to  intuition,  128  ;  sus- 
ceptible of  improvement,  134 ;  office  of,  as 
to  intuition,  142. 

Unios  with  God  implies  possession  of  His 
favour.  364;  with  God  necessary  in  order 
to  holiness,  368. 

Urban  VIII..  Pope, condemned  the  doctrines 
of  grace  held  by  Janseiiius,  387. 

V. 

ViN  MiLDKRT,  opinion  of,  as  to  importance 
of  the  external  evidences  of  Christianity, 
1110. 

Verbal  Dictatioji,  .nrgnments  against  theory 
of,  as  to  inspiration,  discussed,  51;  position 
that  there  is  no  positive  evidence  of,  dis- 
cussed, 51 ;  argument  against,  from  differ- 
ence of  style  of  the  sacred  writers,  dis- 
cus-sed,  54 ;  argument  against,  from  alle^'ed 
competency  of  the  sacred  writers  without 
it,  discussed,  56. 

Versions,  Ancient,  how  the  Apocrypha  were 
introduced  into,  612;  contained  many  con- 
fessedly uninspired  writings,  614. 

Virgin.  The,  worship  of,  by  Church  of  Rome, 
528 ;  office  for,  52S. 


W. 

Warrurton  Bishop,  opinion  of,  that  the  mo- 
rality of  a  system  can  furnish  only  a  pre- 
sumption of  its  Divine  origin.  208. 

Wahdlaw,  Dr.  Ralph,  his  method  of  discuss- 
ing miracles  adopted  by  the  author,  228; 
doctrine  of,  as  to  nature  of  miracles,  231; 
his  criticism  of  Trench's  theory  as  to  mir- 
acles, 2.32;  his  view  of  miracles  as  involv- 
ing the  immediate  agency  of  God,  'i36;  his 
view  of  miracles  as  themselves  speciinens 
of  inspiration,  239 ;  his  view  of  the  testi- 
monial connection  of  miracles  with  inspi- 
ration, 241 ;  his  view  of  the  prevention  of 
the  effects  of  spurious  miracles  by  the 
goodness  of  God,  criticised,  245  ;  his  view 
as  to  the  ethical  relations  of  miracles, 
273. 

Will,  The,  Morell's  theory  of,  as  constituting 
the  essence  of  mind,  discussed,  8S;  advo- 
cates of  freedom  of,  deniers  of  imputed 
righteousness,  3S0;  relation  of,  to  grace, 
380;  bondage  of,  maintained  by  the  Re- 
formers, 381  ;  sovereignty  of,  inconsistent 
with  gratuitous  justification.  380;  doctrine 
of  Home  as  to  the  liberty  of,  382. 

Will  of  God,  supremacy  of,  and  Christ's  im- 
puted righteousness,  inseparable,  382;  ex- 
clusive of  man's  will  in  regeneration.  .380. 

Wilson,  Bishop,  opinion  of,  as  to  importance 
of  external  evidences  of  Christianity,  190, 
191, 194. 

Witnes.s  or  THE  Spirit.  The,  direct  and  im- 
mediate, 407  :  importance  of,  as  an  element 
of  piTsonal  religion,  407  ;  salutary  influ- 
ence of  doctrine  of,  on  churches  holding 
the  Arniinian  system,  408;  produces  im- 
plicit dependence  on  God's  grace,  408. 

WiTSins.  distinction  of,  between  senses  of 
the  term  reasim,  185  ;  opinion  of,  as  to  the 
office  of  reason  in  regard  to  revelation,  193, 
201. 

Wolfe,  doctrine  of,  as  to  form,  285. 

Wolfknbuttel  Fragments,  effect  of  the  pub- 
lication of  the,  222. 

WooLSToN,  infidel  method  of,  anticipated  that 
of  Strauss  an<l  Bauer,  222. 

Works,  all,  excluded  from  justification,  352; 
good,  the  source,  rule  and  end  of,  364; 
dead,  365. 

Worship,  supposes  mutual  communications 
between  the  object  of,  and  the  worshipper, 
253 ;  the  nature  of  man  leads  to,  253 ;  de- 
scription of  deadly  effects  of  that  of  Rome 
as  sensuous,  319;  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
nnscriptural,  539;  of  Church  of  Rome  hea- 
thenish, 538;  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  528;  of 
sainU  by  Church  of  Rome,  530. 


III.— 52 


1 


i 


